Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

01 | 02 | Archive 03

Contents

Why we don't trust the "entertainment news" media

Today, 1 May 2006, zap2it.com reports—and UPI mimics—that Lohan slipped coming out of the shower and suffered a "hairline fracture" to her foot, leaving her "sporting a wrapped ankle and foot," according to the story. "I can't wear heels though," she's quoted as saying. "That's the bad thing." Nevertheless, she's supposed to have dropped to the floor and done 12 pushups during this press conference (?) in Los Angeles. As if that wasn't a miraculous enough recovery, Yahoo! news has Associated Press photos of her attending an event in New York today, wearing high heels! So, who do we trust, anyway?! ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If we can't trust the entertainment news media, who can we trust? What will become of us? Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Oh, dear God (or whoever), no, not a whole planet of... of... GASP! Bill O'Reillys??!?!</sarcasm> ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That story is obviously not true. Only headlines should be included in this article. Lil Flip246 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Release date for Bobby

I went and researched this because I just can't believe it—sure enough, MovieWeb lists this film's release on 22 November 2006. For you young'uns (no dis intended [grin]), that will be the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of his older brother "Jack"... RadioKirk talk to me 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Table of Contents edit

There was a significant amount of white space created by the table of contents. I added the {{TOCleft}} to get rid of it. Any thoughts? Like/dislike? -- backburner001 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Payola

Lohan was one of the artists connected to the recent payola scandal involving Universal. This Fox article actually quotes a memo about hiring people to call in to TRL and boost her ranking on the show. Her wikipedia article mentions that her video reached #1 on TRL, so the payola stuff should be included. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195180,00.html 70.130.231.158 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This shows up twice in search: Fox News Gossip and salon.com, which got it from... Fox News Gossip. That's the reason why I (for one) did not write it in. RadioKirk talk to me 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Firecrotch

I don't see anything about the "Firecrotch" incident where some random socialite with Paris Hilton in tow ranted and raved about how Linday Lohan was a "Firecrotch" and "Poor" because she was "only worth 7 million dollars". Maybe we shoudl give it a mention, just because it's so funny to watch on tape. The Fading Light 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly notable. I've seen the video, it's just the drunk rantings of a somewhat sad socialite. Not relevant to this article. --Yamla 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
But you have to admit that it's funny, as in "Look at the drunken idiot mommy, isn't he a pathetic sight?". The Fading Light 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

New pic?

Does anyone think we should get a new pic for the box? I don't really think its that representative of Lohan in terms of look and style.--CyberGhostface 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Easier said than done. Finding a public domain image or one that we can use under the principles of fair-use is rather difficult. --Yamla 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the pic should be removed. Wikipeidia readers should expect a fairly clean experience, and that pic is far too sexually suggestive.

It's harder than you think to find a pic. Also, the last one was a little worse than this. Yanksox 03:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
That, and Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Even if it were, its hardly sexually suggestive.--Iorek85 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how its suggestive. I got it from the opening intro at llrocks.com. So obviously if Lohan is putting it on her own official page it can't be that bad.--CyberGhostface 14:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dream Come True

The information in the article claiming that Lindsay has her "own" charity, Dream Come True, is wrong. Lindsay has not been involved this group since 2002. Consequently, she had nothing to do with the founding or operation of this charity -- she just attended a benefit or two back in her Parent Trap days!

Okay. Do you have a reliable source for this information? RadioKirk talk to me 19:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lohan, Bill and "big-name directors"

I've researched this bit about Lohan bolting Bill and the reliability of any source therefor is dubious. The business about Lohan leaving to "stick to working with big-name directors now" appears to have begun with Roger Friedman of FoxNews.com, who says he got it from "(s)omeone in Lohan’s crowd ... at the overcrowded Hudson Hotel party," essentially admitting that this is unreliable. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

deletion

I deleted the bill part of the filmography section because on the bill wikipedia page it said that linsdey lohan will no longer be lucy in the movie and will be replaced by jessica alba. -monroylobo

Please see your talk page and discussion above. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Change main photo

The article's main photo of her is pretty lousy-looking in my opinion. I think it should be replaced with one from [1]. --Cybercobra 09:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

None of those is less than 2 years old... and the site's main image is the same as this one :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, that site is blatantly violating copyright on most of those images. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. --Yamla 14:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How are they violating copyright? Its her own official site! --Cybercobra 04:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hhhhmmm, I didn't notice that. In any case, we can't use the images without violating her copyright. At least, not unless we can use them under fair-use rationales. --Yamla 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I honestly think you're overreacting on this. As long as the proper copyright is listed I don't see why a better picture shouldn't be posted.--CyberGhostface 16:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So long as proper copyright and a detailed fair-use rationale is listed, a better picture would be great. --Yamla 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Current pic

While I think the current pic is a lot better than the old one, you should add copyright information so certain people won't revert it. --CyberGhostface 13:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And it was reverted back to the creepy one. I put a new pic in which has the proper guidelines so there's no excuse for changing it back.--CyberGhostface 13:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, while "creepy" is subjective, this newest image follows guidelines. The previous B&W was a potential copyvio and had to be removed ASAP. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think the other one really displayed her properly. I mean, if that was Lohan's new look, fine but I don't think she ever really was associated with it. But I was wrong for saying it was creepy, so I apologize for that.--CyberGhostface 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous for

I don't understand the need for the "famous for" bit in the bio box. Isn't it enough to say she is an actress and singer as is the case in numerous other biographical articles? Do we really need the POV of someone selecting the movies that she is famous for? It's not so bad for Lindsay - she hasn't made too many films, but it's setting a bad precedent for the articles of other actors who have had long, successful careers. Who decides what they're "famous for"? It's really bad IMO. Rossrs 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That was based on box office, not POV, but perhaps I can come up with a better term... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
oh, and the "age 19" - it says she's born in 1986. That suffices. Are our readers so mathematically incompetent that we have to calculate her age for them? Rossrs 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As I noted in the reversion, I don't think there's anything wrong with making things easy for people. We have differing cultures with different calendars, and a learning curve, to deal with ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. For one thing, I'm concerned with consistency. That is, the bio box for Lohan should be basically the same in style and content as the bio boxes used in other articles. This is the first time I've seen "famous for" and an age. "Famous for" is not a good term. From my perspective, for example, she's "famous for" having her photo printed in tabloids and behaving badly in nightclubs, because "famous" is a very POV adjective. You could call it "most successful movies", or whatever, but I still don't see a point and using box office as a basis is not necessarily an infallible barometer. Some movies are wildly successful and profitable, and quickly forgotten, and the performer is not necessarily made famous as a result. The concept reminds me of the little weekly brochures of new releases that my local video library hands out. For a Lohan film it might say something like "Lindsay Lohan ("Parent Trap", "Mean Girls") stars in the new blah blah blah film"... it has a very fanzine ring to it, not encyclopedic, in my view. As for the age, and making it easier for people, I think that an encyclopedia should not be about "making it easy". It should serve to educate, enlighten and to a degree, challenge the reader. Making it more accessible and providing more clarity, are good objectives, and this is largely a question of ensuring comprehensiveness of the article as a whole, but saying that someone was born in 1986 and is therefore 19 years of age is a bit too much like "dumbing down", like "I've written an article, but to save you the strain of thinking, I'll do your thinking for you". I'm not comfortable that any of our articles convey that message in any way. It's assuming that potential readers have a very limited intellect and an even smaller attention span and that's a mistake. We should not be bringing the content of our articles down to the level of the lowest common denominator and although this is only one small part of one article, it is a featured article, and is therefore likely to be used as a standard against which future articles will be assessed. Rossrs 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"Career milestones" is a very good choice. I still don't think it's vital to have that there, but hmmmm, if it needs a title, I don't think you could do better. Thank you - much more suitable. still don't like the age 19 though ;-) Rossrs 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Most kind, thank you :) I chose to include that as Lohan's is an unusual case, in that she's both an established actor and recording artist; I think the precedent is good in that someone seeing her in a TV interview and looking here for more information gets a quick answer to "from where might I know her?" or "where can I see her work?" As for age, well, it's an encyclopedia, and it's a quick tidbit of relevant information ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that in a print encyclopedia (which I am well aware Wikipedia is not), putting the age of anything as an absolute would be senseless, since a year after printing it would be outdated. Also, there is the whole putting Wikipedia on a DVD project, and having someone's absolute age in an article would seem rather silly on a static resource. Do we really want to have to go around on everyone's birthday and update their age? Peyna 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Click "edit this page" and you'll see it is a template that updates on the appropriate day. That's the beauty of it... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea, I respect that. But, I think Peyna is right on this. I think it's enough to say the year she was born and not add the age, its just a little "2006 - 1986 = 19". But on the other side: It isn't bad and so, let it stay unless we publish wikipedia as a print version(I think I have seen this in a bookshop recently...) --DocBrown 09:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BLP

I wasn't saying this article doesn't comply with BPL, I've just seen this tag posted in a number of prominent pages that otherwise seems to comply with the policy anyway. Just seems like a standard tag for living people, but I am not sure Mad Jack 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well the template read, "This article should be edited in accordance with the policies and guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons", suggesting that more work was needed to comply. I can see, though, that it also suggests future editors need to keep the policy in mind when editing. Maybe the template needs clarifying language ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it now says "This article constitutes the biography of a living person and editors should keep this policy in mind when making any changes." Does that sound good? Mad Jack 05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I know, that was my change, presuming it's not altered again. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

"is an American media-whore, actress, pop singer-wannabe"

Is this vandalism or is this actually factual? either way, the wording doesn't make it sound like it should be in an encyclopaedia.

Vandalism... I think :) Mad Jack 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol ... it iz vandalism --213.42.2.23 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lohan on front page image a no-no

right|250px|thumb|

Why was this image on the main page, and no where else? We simply do not upload images to solely appear on the main page. -- Zanimum 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The main image was changed (with appropriate discussion) between the time it was chosen for the Main Page and the time it got there. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why?

No matter how good this article is, please, I never want to see it on the main page again. I didn't even want to see it today - Bagel7 01:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My, isn't that sweet? You know, I've seen a lot of things featured on the main page of which I'm not particularly fond, and I've never asked for "never again". I hope maybe, just maybe, you'll gain a new respect for tolerance of variety... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, you really will never again see this on the front page. Unless every article here becomes featured and we go into repeats. :) Mad Jack 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a featured article because people put effort into it being informative on the subject. Bagel7, just because you don't like the subject (which I don't either, really), doesn't mean that the Wikipedia community is going to give in to your demands and not put it on the main page. The vast majority of the bands on your userpage will never have a chance at becoming featured articles (Blink 182 and Hot Hot Heat? ...really?), and for good reason. --Vyran 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Vyran, please be WP:CIVIL. That was unnecessary. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how 'bout now. --Vyran 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Better, thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

AGREED, pointless fluff like this on the frontpage degrades the integrity of this website. Who's next, Pam Anderson or Paris Hilton? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.105.214 (talk • contribs).

By god, you're right. Just look at tomorrow's featured article -- Pope Pius XII - cleary too much popecruft on the main page. Raul654 21:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are trying to even think of a pope at the same level as Lohan, it goes to show where the respect in this world has gone. I'm agnostic myself, but I at least have respect for history and religion.68.72.105.214
Believe it or not, it is possible to have both the proper respect for religion and a sense of humor. Perhaps you should try it sometime... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the chuckle :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, got a lot of response here. Kirk: i do have "respect for tolerance of variety," which is an interesting way of putting it, I was just showing my opinion. Vyran: Demands? Who said anything about demands? Again, just statng my opinion. The fact that you took the time to go through my userpage is somewhat pathetic. No offense, but there's no need to bring good bands into this Raul: What's wrong with the Pope? 68.72.105.214: I agree - Bagel7 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan: Adult Star?

From the second paragraph of the intro: "As an adult star, Lohan began to take on more varied roles and projects, including Robert Altman's A Prairie Home Companion."

I'm not sure if it's just me, but if I didn't know better, I'd infer from this sentence that she was a porn star! (And a quick Google of "adult star" [with quotes] seems to agree with me!)

--T. S. Rice 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, never mind, looks like it was reverted. T. S. Rice 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Born July 2nd?

haha, nice birthday present she got --Sirevil

Haha yeah - I guess User:Raul654 has a new way up his sleeve of turning the featured article into a way to commemorate birthdays. --NicAgent 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I must've missed an important vote. In any case, as a guy who uses a Lindsay Lohan avatar on digg, I very strongly support this. --an odd name 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I just realized it now. Yeah, nice present I think. Question is: Does she look on wikipedia? ;) --DocBrown 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
anyone have anyways of contacting her to tell her that? --Sirevil 18:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonstandard Pronunciation Information

That bar makes the page look ridiculous. Can someone please change it.72.80.37.6 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Soap?

Why do you just say she started her career 'on a soap opera' and not say which one? It was, I am told, Another World, and she is listed on their official site, which you give a link to Norm Tered 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It does say which one; just, not in the lead, where it doesn't belong :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article, protect?

Well done, everyone for getting this to featured article status. Now, we are being hit by vandalism and graffiti. Speak now (or in the next few minutes at least) if you think this article should be semi-protected instead of fully open. That means new editors without accounts would not be able to edit the article and should cut down on about 80% of the vandalism. I can protect the article but I'm going to bed right away. Any other admin could also do the same. --Yamla 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I show the article already semi-protected. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
We should suggest some kind of policy to always semi-protect featured articles on their big day. There is really no reason not to. Mad Jack 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
RadioKirk just added semi-protection. Prior to that, Brian0918 had protected it against moves but had not semi-protected it. I agree with Mad Jack. This page is a huge target for vandalism at the best of times, it'll be much worse over the next 16 hours or so. --Yamla 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that featured articles are generally not protected per User:Raul654/protection. (don't shoot the messenger, just FYI) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting us know. I can't say I approve of that policy but I understand it. Luckily, I wasn't the one who protected this page.  :) I certainly won't unprotect it today but other admins are free to do so. --Yamla 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the Raul thing. Well, logically, and I think this will eventually happen, we should have some kind of thing where no one who hasn't registered an account can edit (any of Wikipedia, that is). It is so incredibly simple to register an account here - it literally takes two seconds and unlike most sites, there's no e-mail confirmation thing. I edit a lot of teen actor/celeb pages, and 95% of anon edits are vandalism. Plus, if you just want to vandalize and run, the "chore" of creating an account might discourage you. Mad Jack 05:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto what Yamla said... I'm not unprotecting the page either, not until things cool down. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Read the final of the five points; this is not preemptive, it is respondent, which is acceptable. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Just as a side question, do featured articles on the Main Page usually receive this much vandalism? Or is Lindsay Lohan disliked that much? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want an answer to that? Aside from the obvious, it's a lot more "fun" to vandalize someone like Lindsay Lohan then it is, say, War of 1812. Mad Jack 05:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It's just that even the Canada article didn't receive this much vandalism when it was on the Main Page. And god knows, I can think of a million fun ways to vandalize the Canada article (which I won't reveal here)... Or maybe it's just me. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Canada vs. Lindsay Lohan? C'mon, we both know Canada doesn't stand a chance in the "fun" department there. Mad Jack 05:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Tell that to the creators of South Park. ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The creators of South Park just haven't had a go at Lindsay Lohan... yet. Mad Jack 05:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I believe they had. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that was Family Guy. Never mind then. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and no. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the semi-protection either, and obviously it was getting hit with quite a bit of vandalism, but as annoying as it may be it probably shouldn't be protected for an extended period of time (e.g.- more than an hour or so). EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, isn't it incredible? We've semi-protected and the vandalism seems to have vanished mysteriously... hmmm.... :) Mad Jack 05:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
lol...I love semi-protection, but, as annoying as it may be at times, I agree with the ideals that Raul has assembled on that page. By the way, I put back the protection so that sysops can only move the page, which was accidently removed. Whoever eventually unprotects it should make sure to keep that in place. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
As much as part of me hated to do it, I have now unprotected the page. It was protected for long enough (too long, some would say) for a page linked from the main page. Everyone keep an eye out. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Happy Birthday! I can't believe we're both 20 and she has already had more sucess than I probably ever will.

Internet Meme

I'm surprised to find that there's no reference to the semi-popular internet meme "Lindsay Lohan Does Not Change Facial Expressions" lohanfacial.ytmnd.com/ I don't see any reason not to mention it, at least in order to redirect to another article with information about the meme. I'm not sure if I ought to add it (given the featured article status) so I'm looking for some opinions.

P.S I'm not very experienced with the whole editing thing, I got some "conflicts" so I hope I haven't messed anything up. Robert Mason 05:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • She does. [2]. QED. Anyways, most internet sites are not reliable sources, and so can't be used as sources in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 17:57
    • They are? I exclusively use on-line sources when citing, and nobody's ever explained... Mostly on-line newspapers, of course, but still all internet sites. —Nightstallion (?) 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • There are two kinds of on-line sources about celebs. One are newspapers/in-depth profiles at other sites - i.e. something where the person themselves was involved in. The other kind are the non-stop trivia sites that copy the IMDB, Wikipedia and each other. These sites are not reliable in the least and should never be used. It is quite possible to cite a whole article to these reputable first-hand sources, as this one did. Mad Jack 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you misunderstand me, the internet meme does exist, there is no doubt about that. I linked an example. The question is not whether it's verifiable, I want to know if it should be included in the article. I feel it should be, and would have done so myself but for the status as a featured article. So I'm looking for a response to that question, nothing else. Robert Mason 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be a relatively simple effort to compile images of a person oft-photographed and compare them as an "inability" to change facial expression; I could probably compile dozens (if not hundreds) more in minutes that disprove the "joke". While this would be a cute addition to a fan page, it is unquestionably fancruft and not for inclusion into an encyclopedia article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic category

By the way, does anyone really have a source that Lindsay is a Roman Catholic? I'm aware that her family has been described as Catholic, but has Lohan herself been? She's into the whole Kabbalah thing now. Mad Jack 05:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

-Hard to say. I mean, anyone who's even mildly related to someone jewish winds up in the jewish people category. Hard to understand how the distinction works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.137.144 (talk • contribs).

If my understanding is correct, it's because "Jewish" describes both the belief and the descent. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First the Kadee Strickland and Now This!!!

Who votes for this crap! Why is Wikipedia being taken over by fan-boyism!!! Putooooey!!!

Sorry man, it's the quality of the article, not what you perceive as the talent level of the performer that counts. Speaking of which, I'm aiming to make Mandy Moore the next one of these - days away from FA nominating that one. Mad Jack 06:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

it sure would be nice if someone created an encyclopedia full of worth-while knowledge and not a bunch of tabloid crap, politicking, unsubstantiated bullshit, and petty edit wars 68.0.185.95 09:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If it *is* bullshit/tabloid crap, it's very well-cited and well-researched (so-called) bullshit/tabloid crap... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you were able to keep this discussion civilized..... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 17:55
If you'd like to stop alleged "fan-boyism" from appearing on the main page, then the answer would be to contribute to articles on topics you'd like to see on the main page and get them to featured status. Extraordinary Machine 13:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly positive article

Let me preface by saying that I am a fan of Lohan as an actress. Heck, I even liked "Just My Luck". But I am SHOCKED this article was made a featured article. Though it is well cited, it is overwhelmingly slanted to cast Lohan in a positive light. In the rare instances when citations of quotations are made where a critic has panned Lohan, the wording is light and airy. One would think given the overwhelming number of positive critical quotes included - where are all EXTREMELY positive - one would balance them out with some of the (many available) negative critical quotes available. As a reader of this article, one comes away with the impression that Lohan's career has left a 90% favorable impact on the critics community, and that's just not the case. Pacian 09:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's too positive, you should add (properly cited) criticism of some sort to it. I'm sure it's out there. Mad Jack 13:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
POV was addressed during this article's FAC; while it is possible to create a massive article with every positive and negative statement available, this article promotes the general consensus for each project and each notable private detail in a presentation that is as brief as possible. It is not even close to "overwhelmingly positive". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

You know, with the amount of vandalism that's been going on, all we've proved is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can vandalize. I don't think I've seen a single productive edit from an anon IP. So, when visitors come to Wikipedia and click on the front page article, half the time they see a vandalized version of the article. Mad Jack 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is just getting absurd. And I have been attacked for my role in reverting the vandalisms, and thanks to whoever blocked that IP. Tobes (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protect. Now I can go to bed. Tobes (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
So..... does anyone know where we can outvote and override Raul's no-protection policy? Because it probably needs to be done, and very soon. I just clicked on the page and was offered only a single nugget of info on Lohan "This is gay". Imagine if it was a middle-aged, conservative woman who saw that. Do you think she would ever use Wikipedia again? Mad Jack 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't Raul's policy, this is Jimbo's policy. The idea is that Wikipedia should be as open to editing as possible. It looks terribly bad for the project when we can't deal with vandalism to the point that when we showcase our best articles, we can't allow people to edit them for fear of vandalism. The Featured Article of the day is practically protected anyway by the number of people and vandalism bots that are constantly watching it; most vandalism stays up for under a minute. The Disco King 16:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, considering there has basically been one bit of vandalism a minute for the past little while, staying up "for under a minute" is not particularly promising. I would imagine that the negative reaction by legitimate readers who stumble on the vandalism is far worse for Wikipedia than that of a would-be vandal who finds that he can not vandalize. Sure, it's a lose-lose situation, but I think it's clear we lose more people by allowing them to witness non-stop vandalism then by stopping them from committing it. Mad Jack 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the diff for today's changes. I noticed a number of positive changes. That's why we don't protect the daily featured article. Raul654 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of the changes in that diff were reversions; of the two I see that weren't, one was good, the other was poorly sourced and had to be fixed. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
And of course, there's the fact that almost all, if not all, of those changes were made by registered users who would not be blocked in any case. Mad Jack 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, but 95% of those edits were made by registered users who would be able to edit regardless of the semi-protect. The exact problem here is that the people who we would not allow to edit are the ones who are causing trouble on the other end, with vandalism. I'd imagine there are exceptions, but they are few and probably not worth scaring away legitimate readers. Mad Jack 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Denata's Pasta Chips

"...and Lindsay helped him create Denata's Pasta Chips"? Apart from sounding suspiciously gobsmacked-teen-magazine-filler - just a little bit too breathless for Wikipedia - how, exactly? I mean, as a child I often "helped" my mum bake a cake, but I wouldn't claim "assistant chef at age 5" - though licking the bowl was very important work... Not that I'd compare myself with the supremely gifted Ms (or, then, Miss) Lohan!

And what are Denata's Pasta Chips? A Wikipedia search produces nothing except this article and various rephrasings thereof. Is it really relevant? What exactly does it prove or show about Lohan? I mean, in the context of the... I'm sorry. I've just had a Moment, where I saw myself from a distance - sitting at a keyboard, disputing a reference to Denata's Pasta Chips in an article about Lindsay Lohan. As you were, folks. Knock yourselves out. --CBennetto 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

They were bought out and the name changed. Meantime, this purpose of this tidbit's inclusion is to help establish that Ms. Lohan had an interest in family maintenance from a very young age. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously? 'Cos it sounds like a piece of puffery from a publicist or a Teen Beat interview. This article is laden with them. References, please?
"I left school for eight months," she said. "When I came back, my friends [asked], 'Where'd you go?' I said, 'My family and I went on a long vacation.' Then the movie came out, and they were, like, 'Um, Lindsay? That's you in Parent Trap,' and I said, 'Oh, yeah. I also did this movie while we were gone.'" Why is this not simply "She chose to keep her involvement in the film a secret from her schoolfriends at the time"?
"Though still a promising star," Robert K. Elder wrote, "Lohan will have to do a little penance before she's forgiven for Confessions."[18] That "penance" came with Mean Girls... According to whom? Again, the writers' urge to celebrate the trajectory of Ms Lohan's career at that point is interfering with a neutral tone.
--CBennetto 14:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is thoroughly referenced; you're asking for answers that are already there. The article correctly chronicles the rise of an established film star and the bumps along the way. The quotes were added during the FAC process to make her a human being rather than a name on an Internet page and this article is featured because of them, not in spite of them (and, the rationale for "penance" comes with the critical quotes, again representative of the majority. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The source says that the father co-invented Denata's Pasta Chips. It says nothing of Lindsay's involvement.
I agree, the source document is being misinterpreted. It is about her father and he is the co-inventor of this mystery product. Lindsay is not mentioned, the other inventor likely worked for the company. It should be removed from the article.--SVTCobra 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; I can no longer find the source for the original assertion (it was there when I wrote it [grin]). Deleted. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lohan out of Bill (film)

According to wikipedia article on the film, Lohan has been replaced by Jessica Alba. J. Van Meter 20:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, RadioKirk, I am aware of the Friedman story, but this source, citing the Hollywood Reporter, does say that Alba is in the film[3] over Lohan. How do we know Friedman wasn't right, if everyone else is reporting the same thing now? Mad Jack 20:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
IMDB lists Alba, not Lohan: [4] J. Van Meter 20:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's not bring up the IMDB here. They don't know Alba from Jennifer Garner, and are not a reputable source. Mad Jack 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some other citations then: [5], [6], [7], J. Van Meter 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, we should probably make the proper changes in the article even with the one source I presented right at the beginning of this discussion. It seems reliable to me. Mad Jack 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have the direct link to the Hollywood Reporter story, and that's good enough. Chang forthcoming... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the Catholic category? Has she actually been described as "Is a Catholic"? I think the Kabbalah stuff might cancel that out. Mad Jack 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"[M]ight cancel that out" is supposition; we don't know that. We do know that she was raised Catholic, as stated and sourced. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but my question was, do you have a source that says Lohan is Catholic? Per W:NOR, we can not make the synthesis ourselves and include someone in a "Roman Catholics" category unless the source explicitly says the person is Catholic, not Raised Catholic, etc.Mad Jack 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed where you mentioned categories; that, too, is a supposition and should be removed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check the neutrality of this article

I have read Wikipedia daily for over a year. Today I created a user account so that I could comment on the tone of this article.

I live in a small fishing village in Mexico and work as an English teacher. One reason I came to Mexico and stay in Mexico is so that I can avoid the constant assault on my intelligence by the media in regards to the latest news about Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, and their ilk.

In Mexico, I can choose for myself whether or not I want to know about any of these people, and when I do so choose, I choose Wikipedia, if possible, because I want neutral, balanced information and a clear, simple style of writing.

I am protesting the lack of balance in this article. I could point out many things that I think go too far, but for lack of time, here's two off the top of my head.

First of all, I suspect there are some negative comments somewhere from the critics regarding Ms. Lohan's movie performances, but all the quotations in this article sound like they were lifted off the posters outside the boxoffice. If can only say nice things about someone, don't say anything at all. I understand what "balanced" means, and this is not it.

The writing style, too, is offensive. The more I read of this article, the more I felt like I was reading either a Enquirer-type tabloid or a teen fan magazine. For instance, the sentence with the words "Lohan auditioned for (and won) the lead teen role... ." In truth, these are the words that prompted me to create a user account.

I have read the biographies of many film actresses on Wikipedia, and I do not ever remember reading these words. I would be willing to bet that the majority of actresses in lead roles in the history of the genre "auditioned for (and won)" each respective role. An alternative such as "Her next movie, another Disney remake.." conveys the same information without the breathlessness.

To end, I chose to read this article on Lindsay Lohan today because, in addition to Wikipedia, I also read the website Overheard in New York faithfully. (I use some of it for my English classes.) My interest in Ms. Lohan was piqued this week after reading the following on that website:

Production assistant: Lindsay, we need you right away. Lindsay Lohan: Oh my God! Don't talk to me like I'm some kind of normal person!

--7th Ave & 9th St

Can we work this quote in somewhere?

--Buenolio 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Buenolio

So, let me get this straight: your solution to a "lack of balance" is to include an utterly unsubstantiated comment from an utterly unreliable source? Yeah, that'll work... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that there are problems with tone. As far as describing her career goes, the article does seem biased - see Diane Keaton for a more balanced, neutral examination of a movie career. But what bothers me most is how little there is about negative public perception of Lindsay Lohan. You mentioned the record executive who said that he knew she was talented. What about all the critics who feel that Lindsay is absolutely talentless? They get no mention, but her distinctive "husky voice" does. What about Lindsay's tumultuous relationships with Wilmer Valderama? Where are the details of her feud with Hillary Duff? What was the public perception of her bulimia/probable cocaine use? This article glosses over all of the perception problems in Lohan's life, and had I never heard of her, I would have thought her to be fairly universally admired after reading this article, which is frankly not true. The Disco King 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should mention Diane Keaton: the massive rewrite of this article starting something like six months ago came after I'd read Céline Dion and, more recently, Diane Keaton—the "how she built herself into a household name" presentation should be familiar. Meantime, what you request in this article does not belong here, at least in detail: critics who find her "talentless" (as you put it) are in the minority—even those who've panned her work generally like her, as in the representative quote (and, reaction to the second album is properly summarized); relationship details with Valderrama and Duff are mostly tabloid pap and almost entirely unreliable, save for the brief mentions that are already there (and, any more detail constitutes unencyclopedic fancruft—this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page); the bulimia/cocaine issue is presented with proper brevity, rebutted, and rebutted in turn; and, frankly, she is mostly admired by people with sufficient thought processes to reject tabloid "reporting". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So if I understand you properly, the fact that tabloids spread rumours which were widely believed and which had a major impact on Lohan's life isn't worthy of mention in this article because the rumours weren't true and intelligent people can see through them? The Disco King 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sort of, but not quite: those which actually had a demonstrable "major impact" would be those she addressed in mainstream press (a quote from her, her mother or her rep in the same tabloid that ran the rumor is no more reliable than the rumor). Those are indeed in the article, with the correct brevity. Anything else is fancruft at best and smear at worst. If it helps, I write news for a living; when rewriting this article and bringing it up for peer review and FAC, I took great pains to present as balanced an article as possible, as briefly as possible. I still believe it succeeds. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Lohan discography as a merge. I have performed the merge. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Leter from Morgan Creek CEO

I found this letter interesting, it relates to her filming of Georgia Rule. As I'm unfamiliar with the article I decided not to make any edits and am just passing this on. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0728061lohan1.html --Tyro 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pink's video

My English is very weak, but could someone add a sentence about Pink's video Stupid Girl where she criticizes Lindsay Lohan lifestyle. Here's some references: [8], [9], [10], http://www.azcentral.com/ent/music/articles/0216pink.html. Thank you. CG 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Drug Use & Party Lifestyle

Due to the disagreement over the meaning of "heavy partying", how about something like "The letter states that Lohan's poor performance is due to her "ongoing all night heavy partying," which some believe is a reference to drug use." Would that put the letter in a better context, and leave interpretation up to the reader? /Blaxthos 01:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does drug use have to be mentioned at all? If anything you could probably say drinking which isn't so hard to believe but saying that heavy partying equals drug use is a bit of a stretch.--CyberGhostface 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If you read up on this page, you will notice several people have noted how hawks seem to want to ensure no negative information gets published. Lohan has a history of drug use, and the letter uses fairly hash diction which indicates a little more than a few drinks at night. We're talking about multimillion dollar movies being put on hold due to her actions. Put it in context. This is not a PR forum. /Blaxthos 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Follow Up: So just because you don't believe it is true, we should keep it off wikipedia entirely? With the conditional statement, I believe that readers can make up for their mind if they believe it or not. Please participate in talk: vs. reverting. /Blaxthos
You're using weasel words ("some believe"...who believes?) to back up your belief which has no real proof besides speculation and assumption.--CyberGhostface 02:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe, for one... and I'm not the only one. There is a whole different level of meaning to letters written by CEO's of hundred-million dollar companies that I think you're missing. How about we meet in the middle? Let's say "drinking and/or drug use" -- that incorporates what you just said, and what I say... AND it frames it as speculation! /Blaxthos 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It says at the top: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately"--CyberGhostface 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference is very clearly sourced. It's the interpretation you have a problem with, however the article clearly states it is speculation and is left up to the user to decide if the speculation is true. Your dogmatic attempt to remove any negativity entirely speaks to a non-neutral point of view, no? /Blaxthos 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference is sourced, but not for what you are attempting to reference. It references heavy partying, but not drug use which is what you are speculating. Why not say "Some believe that Lohan secretly molests small children in alleyways" and use a reference to her being rowdy as proof?--CyberGhostface 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Because the letter doesn't mention anything about that. If you have any experience with dealing with letters from companies (who are liable for the contents), you'd understand the strong point he is trying to make. I have made numerous attempts at including information that is relevant, and yet you insist on removing any reference to construing it in a negative light. After reading your user:talk page, it is plainly obvious that you make a habit of trying to bend this wikipolicy to remove information you deem as negative. I will open a mediation case sometime later tonight. /Blaxthos 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you went through my talk page could tell me what exactly you are referring to with what I have done that constitutes as removing negative information?--CyberGhostface 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
you mean besides this instance? Sure, but this isn't the proper page for it! ;-) /Blaxthos 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I mean besides this instance. Please, tell me.--CyberGhostface 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh I know what you're talking about. You're referring to the Dark Tower thing. You obviously have no idea what's going on so let me fill you in. He read an article concerning a book he had yet to read. Despite the spoiler warnings, he scrolled down and saw an image that spoiled a major part for him. Now he wants to remove it because it got spoiled for him.
So no, I don't think thats comparable to me wanting to remove negative information from the Lohan article since I'm trying to keep stuff in the Dark Tower one. Ironic, isn't it? Next time when you look at stuff that doesn't concern you should actually have an idea whats going on before you make rash assumptions. Thanks. (And btw, its flattering that you're actually going through my talk page to talk to other people to compare notes about me behind my back...flattering, yet somehow creepy.)--CyberGhostface 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the point both of you are trying to make and both have merits, but I think CyberGhostface is correct in this instance simply because the articles and letters being used for reference don't specifically say anything about drugs (although we all know this is probably the case). If it did, then I'd agree with you Blaxthos, because I would not consider this a poorly sourced piece of material, but, unfortunately, it doesn't mention drug use. Roguegeek 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI: And there's actually a follow-up to this incident explained in the following article. Hollywood Reporter article Roguegeek 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is still my opinion that the language of the letter itself, especially if you take into account the sender's position within the organization, is very clear in what it means. If you couple that with her past admissions, along with other independant citations, I think there is a very strong case for at least the mention that this probably alludes to drugs. If you read over the history in this talk page, there seems to be a lot of effort to keep any kind of negative connotation out of public view. :-( /Blaxthos 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect; there is, however, a concerted effort (as there should be in every Wikipedia article) to keep out that which is unreliable and non-notable. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please participate in the talk page instead of reverting immediately. You are in danger of violating the 3RR. Further reverting without discussion will result in a mediation case being opened.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaxthos (talk • contribs).

This has nothing to do with "hawks" somehow "protecting" this page. Whether everyone on the planet believes Lohan uses drugs is irrelevant; it is not encyclopedic without a reliable source, and there is none that demonstrates anything beyond someone's belief—period. I have removed the header and rewritten the final paragraph to remove the WP:NPOV and unnecessary exposition. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god -- are you people really this nuts about this actress' image? Compare the two paragraphs... one gives contexutal and factual information from three sources. The other minimizes the letter sent to Ms. Lohan, and attempts to offer third-party explainations to discredit the intent... how can you POSSIBLY say this is not a hawkish attempt to preclude information you deem negative? How can you even contend this is encyclopaedic? At this point, I can't decide whether to open a mediation case or just give up... unbelievable! /Blaxthos 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, incorrect—and, your own bias is now inextricably exposed. The version to which you're attempting to revert tried to include virtually the entire letter with no rebuttal—and, Dina Lohan is Lindsay's mother, meaning second person at the furthest. The rewrite briefly presents the accusation, and briefly presents the rebuttal—this is Wikipedia, not the Defamer. I recommend with all possible strength that you open a mediation case if you feel that's what's needed; don't be surprised, however, to see the encyclopedic version stand. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding the "Alma mater."

OK, so I'm well aware that Lindsay left Calhoun her junior year(CHS' Wiki page even says so), but there's one thing I'm not quite clear on; she did finish high school, didn't she?

If so, where'd she get her diploma from?

MLT2712 07:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As it states in the article, she finished at home; I for one have found no source re the issuance of a diploma. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk's Fanatical Approach

{{POV}} As quoted from RadioKirk...

This is not a news site, it's an encyclopedia; the rewrite is not "more PR than NPOV", it presents both sides of the story with proper dispatch. Quite the contrary; any insistence on reverting to the negative-only, sneak-every-possible-accusation-into-the-text version suggests a betrayal of your agenda. What is your intention? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine this, shall we?

  1. discussion page -- check out how often, and how quickly, you jump on people for making edits to the LL article.
  2. content -- look at how often you remove content that puts LL in anything less than a glowing beacon of perfection
  3. frequency -- check out how often you revert people's edits
  4. POV -- notice how many users have noted the PR-esque tone of this article, and the frequent complaints that this article does nothing but put LL in a positive light.

I really don't care about Lindsay Lohan, or what kind of lifestyle she leads, at all. I found some pertinant information, and attempted to contribute it. The information I contributed was above-board and properly referenced. Compromise offers were attempted with regards to the diction used.

Radiokirk, on the other hand, has seemingly made it his mission to ensure that this article remains a bastion of purity for Ms. Lohan. I'm not the first person to make this observation, and doubtless I will be the last. I no longer see the point in continuing my attempts at offering a more balanced view of this topic... I refuse to become a zealot, because then I'm no better than you are! I can, however, sleep at night knowing two things... one, i tried my best, and two, I didn't become fanatical. Hopefully the readers of this article will be able to recognize the NPOV difficulties (many already have). CC: User's Talk Page /Blaxthos 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply here. Contrary to your view, the bias is not mine. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If you say so... talk/revert history speaks for itself, as well as other users' observations (which long predate my involvement). But, you can have the article... the only people who win in this case are the zealots, so I conceed defeat. (EOF) /Blaxthos 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum -- POV tag added to top... people should at least be aware that there have been multiple objections to the POV of this article, no? I am hoping that in good faith you will allow the tag to remain... we both seem to believe a POV issue is present, no?
"Victory"? "Defeat"? Sorry, neither; this is supposed to be about the encyclopedia, and presenting that which is reliable and notable, positive and negative (as this article does—her rise to stardom is correctly chronicled, as is what has gone wrong, including a second album that essentially tanked). I agree with all possible strength that the edit history does in fact speak for itself—when data needs to be included/removed/fixed, I'm one of a handful of people who are there to make it right, as my knowledge of this subject is high. Obvious bias—such as an all-negative paragraph outlining virtually everything Mr. Robinson wrote while eschewing the rebuttal—is and must be one of those items to be removed from this and any other article—simple as that. I'm also removing the tag as obections have been addressed. Feel free to request mediation. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What a surprise! You removed all indication that there is even an ongoing dispute of POV. Never would have seen that one coming. Just because you have an answer to others' objections does not mean that the issues have been addressed (or resolved), and it certainly does not mean a dispute does not exist... in fact, it does exist and is ongoing... but like I said, I had no doubt you wouldn't even agree to let someone place a dispute notice in a public place. Talk about opression... /Blaxthos 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"What a surprise" indeed; yours is the only active discussion, hence the tag will remain here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In case you missed it, I put the tag here to be ironic... you are well aware that POV tags belong on the article itself, and your oppression necessitates it being placed here in a display of defiance. Also, please note the multiple objections you've faced just in the last month... seems pretty active to me... ;-) /Blaxthos 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In case you missed it, I left the tag here to be ironic; it does not belong on the article since the last potential POV issue was addressed nearly a month ago and the current one is yours alone. Your bias and drive to "win" run counter to what Wikipedia is all about; stop the petty arguing and bring an |Rfc if you have a continuing issue with the balance this article presents. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Who decided all these disputes are resolved? Do you base resolution on who got the last word, or when the opposition loses the stamina to continue to raise objections? Those are the only two resolutions I've seen occuring here...
  2. This dispute is certainly not resolved. Why do you think that you have the right to continually pull POV objections from the page? Is there any sort of circumstance you can conceive of where the POV notice *should* be used on this page? Are not the multiple objections of multiple users enough?
Free speech, unless it disagrees with your opinion... Don't you think it's time to step back from the judge, jurty, and executioner roles and let others contribute without your blessing? /Blaxthos 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So, therefore, what? You can "take over" and turn it into a bash session with no rebuttal? Not as long as WP:OWN and WP:NPOV exist... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The "bash" you reference:

In July 2006, Lohan was taken to a hospital while shooting Georgia Rule, complaining that she was "overheated and dehydrated"; Morgan Creek Pictures CEO James G. Robinson had a letter[1] delivered to Lohan. In the letter he referenced frequent tardiness and absences of Lohan, and accused her of making up "bogus excuses: The letter states that Lohan's poor performance is due to her "ongoing all night heavy partying". It references Lohan's attitude of "a spoiled child" who has "alienated many of [her] co-workers and endangered the quality of this picture." The letter indicates that legal action will be taken to recover "full monetary damages" if Lohan continues to put production interests at risk.[2] It was quickly published on the Internet. A Morgan Creek spokesman verified the authenticity of the letter to several news sources, including TheSmokingGun.com and the LA Times.[3]

Seems fully referenced, contributed and edited by multiple wikipedians... This isn't a bash, and the last versions I posted even removed all symbolance of analysis! I was unaware that this is a forum where all info must be presented in a positive light. Please make sure to note the previous objections and observations of other transient wikipedians regarding the same issue -- the continual effort of a few people to ensure that negativity is minimized. We're all wrong, right? You're the only one of only a " handful of people who are there to make it right" when there is "data [that] needs to be included/removed/fixed". Your words, not mine... /Blaxthos 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And, again, here is where you would be incorrect: it is a one-sided bash because it attempts to present as much of the letter as possible (violating WP:N) while intentionally eschewing an exiting rebuttal by her manager (violating WP:BLP). Policy and balance are not things to be disregarded anywhere, never mind a featured article—and, even a million wrong editors pushing a POV are still wrong. I do sincerely hope you're not so impartial in your other edits... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
How many times can you keep re-using this "lack of balance" justification to skew the article's tone? How many wikisurfers have to point it out? There seem to have been as many people decrying this article's tone and POV as I've ever seen on such a non-controversial topic. At what point will you give any thought to a viewpoint other than your own? Thank goodness you're there to make all decisions re: contentworthy, trustworthy, and appropriately entoned... /Blaxthos 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
All but yours were done a month ago; how many times can you continue on the "edited by multiple Wikipedians" tack as justification for what is the real imbalance—the all-negative-and-every-possible-word-of-it-and-oh-by-the-way-sorry-you-don't-get-a-rebuttal-because-I-think-this-article-is-a-PR-piece violation of WP:OWN and WP:POINT you continue to push? Meantime, I've filed an Rfc and will continue to work to make this and other articles as neutral as possible despite editors with your definition of neutrality. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, the more I think about this, the more I see problems in what you say and how you proceed... I will try to take them in order:
  1. The edits I made were completely factual. They reference nothing more than the content of the letter, which is undisputed.
  2. The content of the letter was briefly analyzed, and other wikipedians and I went back and forth to find suitable language and/or remove unsuitable wording. It was pretty much settled before you jumped on board.
  3. A more fitting response that would allow counterpoints is to add a paragraph about the rebuttal, as opposed to rewriting an entire section to reflect your opinions (which have been called into question multiple times before). Just add a paragraph or sentence(s) stating "In reference to the letter, so and so made the following statements to insert_source_here: "insert quotes here."
  4. History and context is relevant, especially given previous objections by multiple users over the tone of this article.
  5. You repeatedly declare disputes as "resolved" when it only appears that no one has the energy/interest/stamina to continue. Not once have I noticed you conceeding a point, even...
  6. You have declared that you are one of a handful of people who is around to "fix" what others do... you go so far as to imply that you're just about the only one who is even qualified to offer information.
  7. Your use of the policies you reference seem to be with the exclusive goal of either removing or minimizing any negative information (I would call this use "abuse"). Do we hold off saying anything negative about Hitler unless it is counterbalanced? At what point does this become protecting an image of a celebrity versus just keeping things sane?
The points contained herein become much more significant when one considers the actions and fanaticism displayed in the past. One doesn't have to dig back more than a few weeks to discover multiple POV objections or to see a pattern. Isolated incidents are one thing, patterns of repeated behavior are something else entirely.
To be absolutely honest, I don't think I could care less about Lindsay Lohan... I'm not the first to object to the dictatorial style with which you hawk this article, nor am I the first to note that this article reads more like a press release than an unbiased encyclopaedic entry. I seriously doubt I'll be the last. More than a handful of have noticed... when you smell smoke, there is usually fire. Do you work for Ms. Lohan? If not, she would be wise to hire your services to ensure her reputation remains pristine. /Blaxthos 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Every point is incorrect—and you desperately need need to read other featured articles about celebrities. One person's diligence (or three or four people, for that matter) does not negate WP:NPOV violations any more than the diligence of hundreds (are you even aware of the Watchlist?). Meantime, seriously, make two paragraphs about something that will be utterly forgotten in a month or less? Please learn the difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So comment on the specific points, which were even numbered for ease of reference. In either case, I am removing talk: and the main article from my watchlist entirely so as not to be baited into futher banter. Feel free to take the last word (few more parts of this edit appear below the first comment. /Blaxthos

Comment: It looks to me like this edit tipped the article away from WP:NPOV by cutting one side of the "controversy" out of the article. As far as I can see it turned a well-rounded and more thorough account of events into a one-sided account lacking important facts. BFD1 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep the timeline in perspective... that edit was a revert of a previously enstated paragraph that was collaborated by several people (on both sides). I still think an adding ancillary an paragraph is more inclusive of multiple points of view than a rewrite. /Blaxthos 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
With respect, the timeline is not at issue here. What is at issue is whether this edit violates WP:NPOV, as alleged above. Insofar as this edit was a deliberate removal of information in an attempt to present the allegations contained in Robinson's letter unilaterally, by removing any opposing explanations or viewpoints (which by the way were properly referenced and verifiable), the edit introduced a significant bias to the article. I don't believe RadioKirk is acting at all fanatical by highlighting this fact. BFD1 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Lindsay Lohan is just a stupid trashy child who is ungrateful for what she has. This article is defintly biased. I don't understand while the whole letter isn't presented here to show the facts. Myrockstar 05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you always this horribly biased, or only where Ms. Lohan is concerned? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would never try and sugar coat something. Good thing her behaviour has been put out their enough. :) Myrockstar 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Then, tabloid reporting sure has hooked at least one fish... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"platinum-selling recording artist"

By way of further explanation for this reversion: while the reverted phrase is technically accurate, I don't find it following the spirit of the term. Generally, a "platinum-selling recording artist" has reached sustained success with at least some measure of "artistry" (as in, lyrics, music and arrangement all self-created) and, in all honesty, I don't see Ms. Lohan there yet. Comments are welcome. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately on Wikipedia, some editors of articles on actors and musicians feel the need to mention the subject's awards and achievements as early as possible. Extraordinary Machine 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro photo

The opening photo is several years old.

Image:Lindsay Lohan.png

Any thoughts on this one? Justen 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One, needs extended fair-use rationale (see the images there now); two, she's not currently blond; three, the one there now is maybe 2 years old, tops. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though the current picture is older its still more representative of Lohan than that one.--CyberGhostface 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dad's political cartoon

From his prison cell, Michael Lohan has sent New York Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove (who's been Lohan's voice before) an editorial cartoon and letter on the situation that split him from his family. The cartoon, while remarkable, paints a picture in which he seems to be an innocent pawn in a nefarious game. When coupled with the actual letter, however—in which he "discusses his 'stupid decisions,' his new spirituality, an inspirational book he's written and his intention to help troubled teens through a ministry when he gets out of prison"—the whole thing smacks like an effort to get some publicity for his upcoming life back on the outside. I, for one, don't find this encyclopedically notable; any thoughts? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Face it, RadioKirk owns this page

I have seen enough evidence to know that RadioKirk owns this page. Just yesterday, I was banned for adding factual information to the encyclopedia, and I even cited my source. But RadioKirk doesn't care, all he cares about is that the article made Lohan look bad. I reverted it a few times, and was blocked. I've got a better idea. It takes two to edit war, right? Then RadioKirk should have been blocked too. I'm sick of how RadioKirk acts like he's the only qualified person here. RadioKirk, do you actually know Lindsay Lohan? Even if you did, how can you justify blocking people for adding factual information to the article, including citations? Stop being so childish over ownership of this page, and let other people add information, provided it is factual and cites its sources. Joeschmoe2003 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but there's a difference between a source and a reliable source. Yours was not reliable; that is and was the only reason for the reversion, and your restoration with no comment or discussion constitutes vandalism. Further, this "story" originated with one comment by Macy that I saw that did not name anyone, never mind Lohan; as it made its way through tabloid press, her name was added, extra quotes were added, and virtually none of it can be traced back to a reliable source. This is not my article; this is an encyclopedia. Why do you have a problem with that? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So, assuming I provide more than one source to back me up, are you gonna call them all "unreliable"? Cause that article isn't the only one online that reported that incident. And it's vandalism to revert without leaving a comment? I'll tell you what vandalism is. Vandalism is the destruction of property. Arson is a form of vandalism. Breaking a window is a form of vandalism. But typing words? I guess that brings whole new meaning to the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword"... Joeschmoe2003 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Every "source" quotes another "source"; it always traces back to an unreliable tabloid report that embellished and/or made up from whole cloth the quotes and/or to whom they were directed. At the same time, you attempted a two-paragraph entry on an item that would barely qualify for one sentence under WP:N if it was reliable. That you restored it without comment is vandalism because it shows you intend to do harm to the page while refusing to discuss that harm. If you're here to make a WP:POINT, you've picked the wrong fight, because Wikipolicy is against you. If you think all this somehow demonstrates that I "own" this page, that's your second strike. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
And what happens when I hit my "third strike"? I suppose you're the referee who's gonna pull me out. And can you prove I "intended" to do harm to the page? I did not intend to do any harm, I simply intended to add factual information. If this is unfactual, then I don't see how the Sharon Stone incident with her not wearing underwear is allowed to remain on Wikipedia, but this isn't. I don't get why you're so protective of this page. What is your connection to Lindsay Lohan? I'm not the first user who's complained about your tactics of keeping this article the way you want it. You're abusing your power, and in my country, when people abuse their power, they get impeached. Who here is in support of placing RadioKirk on trial? All in favor, say yay; all in disfavor, say nay. Joeschmoe2003 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! I'm protective of the encyclopedia, period—and "the Sharon Stone incident with her not wearing underwear" is in no way comparable. Also, it appears I'm transposing WP:V violators; if so, this issue is even flimsier than the Macy business. (Meantime, I admit "second strike" was poorly worded; it should have read "second mistake".) I'll be more than happy to answer to anyone who feels I've acted in any way counter to the goals and ideals of Wikipedia; and, I would guess, you would fare not nearly so well. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs 7 thru 54

....are formatted incorrectly. The title refers to the title of the article, not the article of the site. I've fixed a few refs already, but many remain. Let's get this fixed so this article is eligible to be a featured article and get onto Wikipedia's front page. --Oscarthecat 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... they were correct when this article became featured (and, it's already been on the Main Page [grin])—did someone change the bloody format again??! :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry Morton and the UPI trip into tabloid journalism

Since someone's already tried to add this, a little background: Extra learns that Harry Morton buys something expensive at Cartier and, without naming a source, presents the purchase as an engagement ring for Lohan. UPI quotes a Morton source as saying, "I can confirm that Harry was shopping in Cartier ... but what he purchased I cannot confirm. If it was in fact a gift then that's between him and whomever the gift is for." Nevertheless, the UPI headline reads Lindsey [sic] Lohan's boyfriend shops for ring. Meantime, The Philadelphia Inquirer writes that a rep for Lohan has denied the whole thing. Once again, this should stand as an excellent example of why Wiki editors need to show considerable care when writing within biographies of living persons. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Talk%7ELindsay_Lohan_Archive_3_d853.html"