Talk:Lindsay Lohan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Lindsay Lohan.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lindsay Lohan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Former featured article Lindsay Lohan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2006.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. February 2005 – February 2006
  2. December 2004 – April 2006
  3. May 2005 – September 2006
  4. September 2006 – February 2007


Contents

[edit] Lindsay's offical website

isin't her website llrocks.com?

[edit] Just change her picture man!

Her main pic isn't so cool. It's been there for a while now it should be changed.

You find us one that isn't copyrighted and we might consider it. Ward3001 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see whats wrong with it either. She's actually posing for a photograph. Its not like some blurry concert photo where she's looking away.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Morning America

Why no mention of her obvious lip synching during her "live" performance on Good Morning America?

Because everybody does it sometimes and it's a non-issue? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If Ms. Lohan was a true singer, she wouldn't lip sync, but she's just a pop star. Not a good one at that!
SHE IS NOT WHAT SHE REALLY IS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.15.86 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a non-issue, and not everybody does it. That's why it stands out I when people do it. They're supposed to be able to sing, and this was a live performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.202 (talk • contribs)
Okay, since an intentionally humorous generality was taken seriously, more people do it than you'll ever know. Still, the utter lack of any notability is only half the issue; her people said she was singing along to a voice track because she had a sore throat; unless you can provide published proof of a lip sync, its addition also violates no original research. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You are kidding, aren't you? At one point she's not even singing, her mouth is closed, and yet the lyrics can still be heard. Given that "more people than [I'll] ever know" lip-sync live, why would her publicists feel the need to concoct laughable stories to deny the accusations? Anyway, surely something that you can see with your own eye's doesn't fall under the category of original research? But a horrible thing happened to her,She was arrested for DRUNK DRIVING and have DRUGS in that car. She may be sent to prison or Let go with a "large" fine.
The story was in a ton of tabloids - if I can provide links, will it then be OK to include it? Actually, I remember that you think such sources are not sufficiently reliable to be included (as you so persuasively argued in the upskirt section above). Of course, if we applied that measure to the current information in the article, there might be a comparative dearth of information on this page. Not too many broadsheets in that ol' reference list. Could it be that you're choosing to apply your "notability", and "reliability" arguments to selectively exclude information that you perceive to be negative? Wait - how uncharitable of me. CnsBiol 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and PS. The "intentionally humorous" sarcasm in the previous statement WAS meant to be taken seriously. You see, most people add statements to discussion pages because they actually want to get some point across, not just have a little condescending laugh to themselves.CnsBiol 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not laughing. I've removed more data from this article—positive and negative—than you'll ever add. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be the [Wikipedia: I was here first—I don't have to answer your arguments with more than one word, you noob] rule, I take it? I think your answers tend towards the dismissive, as evidenced by the first one in this string.CnsBiol 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's the we've-already-dealt-with-this-non-issue-argument, even by people who assume good faith better than do you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
How am I to interpret your original reply in this string in good faith? Your reply was terse, dismissive, and unreferenced. Perhaps I've read the definition of cruft a little closer than you. From WP:CRUFT: "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such nonsense, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." This would pretty adequately sum up the intent of your first reply, no?
Finally, in relation to your last comment, I've scanned through the talk archives, and couldn't find where the lip-syncing issue has been previously dealt with. CnsBiol 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, you've completely glossed over "Okay, since an intentionally humorous generality was taken seriously ..." immediately following; nevertheless, my initial reply was correct.
"This would pretty adequately sum up the intent of your first reply, no?" You're correct: no.
As for the archives, it was there last time I looked...
The only lack of WP:AGF within this "conversation" is yours; my intent is and has always been the maintenance of Lindsay Lohan as a Featured article—an article to which all others aspire, creating a proper biography which handles both the positives and negatives of a subject's life succinctly and without original research and non-notable data as demanded by policy (biographies of living persons specifically states that we maintain "a degree of sensitivity"). Your glib ad hominems do nothing to take away from the fact that this episode fails the "does anyone care" test and, therefore, is not notable. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My ad hominems? May I quote: "I've removed more data from this article—positive and negative—than you'll ever add." Nonetheless, I shall make my case for the inclusion of the lip-syncing event in Lohan's bio clear.
Coming from an acting background, Lohan faces the common perception that she does not actually have any singing talent, and that her music career is more of a cynical ploy by an opportunistic manager. Her lip-syncing on GMA was therefore a blow to her credibility as a singer.
I'm going to ignore your continued statements about "data", because WP:CRUFT is not a policy or guideline, and anyway, expressly states that cruft is not a reason for omission, but really refers to non-notability. Is the lip-syncing event notable? You can't argue that the lip-syncing event didn't occur, as it was caught on film. Your argument must therefore surround whether the event was worthy of being noted. It would seem from the notability criteria that several independent sources constitute notability. Here are two: [1] and [2]. Here is the original video [3].
Her PR people have issued denials, which can be included. But not in the usual way, where we say that she "allegedly" lip-synced. Because she did lip-sync.
Any chance of a pointer to the place in the archive where the lip-syncing issue was previously dealt with? CnsBiol 03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where it went.
As I recall, there actually were two reasons this data was excluded: one, unless someone else did the singing on her album (a la Milli Vanilli), the event is not notable, plain and simple (in fact, it epitomizes WP:NOTNEWS, a policy/guideline proposal); two, her publicist said she was singing to a voice track (sore throat, or something similar), so the article cannot say she was lip-syncing as it is not necessarily factual.
Meantime, I continue to have difficulties with the concept that the author of "would her publicists feel the need to concoct laughable stories" and "surely something that you can see with your own [eyes]" (Really? You can conclusively prove lip-syncing vs. singing to a voice track?) would deign to discuss neutrality with me; anything of similar tone added to the article would be nuked on sight by any one of dozens of editors.RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't notable. It's not really up to any of the contributors to wikipedia. From WP:N "The primary notability guideline for inclusion of articles on Wikipedia states that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I offered two. Sure, they're not high-brow publications, but LL isn't a high-brow subject. Your continued claims of WP:NOTNEWS therefore confuse me.
On that subject, please stop pretending that your assertions (e.g., "unless someone else did the singing on her album, a la Milli Vanilli, the event is not notable") are arguments. Please tell me why you think that someone pretending to sing in a studio is notable, but someone pretending to sing on stage is not notable. I outlined precisely why I think that this would be of interest to someone interested in Lohan's musical ability. Your counterpoint was: "the event is not notable, plain and simple", apparently because Milli Vanilli was notable.
Finally "anything of similar tone added to the article would be nuked on sight by any one of dozens of editors." I realise this. That's why I didn't include it in the page. The talk pages are allowed a degree of leeway not permitted in the encyclopedia. I believe that if something is directly observable (e.g., the moon can be seen at night), then a publicist issues a questionable denial (e.g., the moon cannot be seen at night), then it is not WP:POV to only include their statement as an afterthought. If you think that we should include the qualifier "allegedly" in the statement, then it's probably not worth arguing. But we should include the link to the videoclip so that people can judge for themselves. CnsBiol 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not up to me; it's up to policy, policy and guideline.
Please stop perverting legitimate arguments in an attempt to discredit them; you cannot in any way, shape or form equate two people caught faking an album by using studio singers with an artist who may or may not have lip-synced during a live appearance and who clearly sung live in others.
Wikipedia should link to a copyright violation? No, no way, not ever. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
1. You were making the comparison. I was pointing out that it was specious. Please explain to me why "unless someone else did the singing on her album (a la Milli Vanilli), the event is not notable, plain and simple". I am not equating them. I am merely stating that they are both notable.
2. As I believe I have pointed out to you before, citing thousand-word policies does not make things clearer. What part of WP:BLP is relevant? What part of WP:N is relevant? As for WP:V, I imagine you're arguing that the cited sources are not reliable. I have answered this point earlier, and you haven't responded. Why do you consider the sources quoted (e.g., People magazine) to be unreliable, when they have been implicitly classed as reliable by their inclusion elsewhere on the LL page?
3. Youtube links are not necessarily copyright violations. Youtube has numerous ongoing partnerships that allow copyrighted material to be placed on their site. There is therefore a very strong argument that we can legitimately link to the site (see [[4]]). CnsBiol 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can't read, I'm not going to coddle you. The video is irrelevant to a non-notable issue.
It becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith in the face of the evidence: yet another username contributing virtually nothing to the encyclopedia (if anything at all) before gravitating straight over here to engage in circular, adaptive arguments designed specifically to avoid the facts and any resolution thereof, usually months after the fact. I'm not repeating myself to a moving brick wall. If you legitimately think I'm wrong, as opposed to just coming here to stir manure, go here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. First, I find it amusing/irritating that you would go from protesting ad hominem attacks to launching into them yourself. Second, I'm not asking to be coddled, I'm asking for some precision in your statements. When I respond to your objections about lack of notability with specific points, you neither accept the arguments nor indicate why you don't find them persuasive. I want to know exactly why you think the arguments are incorrect, which will require more specifics than just "not notable". Finally, I don't believe that my arguments have changed throughout this string. From the beginning I've said that since the lip-syching was covered by various sources, it reaches the bar for notability. CnsBiol 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, she does seem to be lip-synching in this performance. I don't see how this information would be relevant, though; Lohan has already performed live a couple of times. Plus, there are artists that lip-synch almost every performance (Hilary Duff, for instance), and you don't see it mentioned into their articles in Wikipedia. 20 June 2007 (UTC)
A notice of this intractable dispute has been placed on the noticeboard here: [5]. CnsBiol 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


This has been the best piece of entertainment I've read in a long time. More fights! *wonders if there was hair pulling involved*

[edit] Lola Cep

Every so often, an editor steps in stating that Lohan's character in CoaTDQ is Lola Stepp—an assertion that, of course, is devoid of a reliable source. So, for purposes of posterity, click on "Lola's Entourage" at the official Disney video page to see that it is indeed Cep. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "BE ADEQUITE" comment actually from Prairie Home Companion

I am not a registered user, so I can't add this to the page... If someone could do it for me, I would appreciate it. I'm just going to write the facts and you guys can word it how you'd like.

The most famous comment that Lindsay Lohan has possibly ever made is the one that ended her open letter after Robert Altman's death: "BE ADEQUITE". Of course, it IS spelled wrong, but many people have said that she's essentially stupid for having said something so stupid. While I can't say that she's not stupid, I can certainly defend on this point.

"Make it Adequate" is a song that was played on the first edition of the "Prairie Home Companion" radio show following Altman's death. The song is listed on the "PHC" website as "Make it Adequate", but is repeatedly referred to by Garrison Keillor as "Be Adequate". The song was written by Richard Dwrosky for Altman (because Altman would often compliment his actors by saying "that was adequate").

I'm assuming Lindsay listened to the show and heard Keillor say "Be Adequite" and assumed that was the title of the song. Seeing as though the song was written specifically for and dedicated to Altman, Lohan was simply saying this as a reference to Altman and Prairie Home Companion.

The reference is right here: http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2006/11/25/ During Segment 2, you hear the song.

I think it's only fair to Lohan that this is added to her article, seeing that the letter she wrote is mentioned. This should be cleared up from here on out.

Thanks ahead of time. 69.180.248.219 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's many, many years older than that. "Be adequate" was something Altman constantly told his actors and, I'm guessing, that includes Lohan; I haven't found a reliable source yet for its origin, but her message appeared intended to return the sentiment. Still, that detail was purged because it is unnecessary and any resolution beyond the "note from the heart" quote is original research—the current version is proper. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
From my original post: "The song was written by Richard Dwrosky for Altman (because Altman would often compliment his actors by saying "that was adequate")" So yeah... I'm huge fan of Altman and I was aware of that (Keillor even mentions it on the show that I linked to). I think it DOES matter, because it's the most widely criticized point in the letter. It is assumed by everyone that she was saying "be adequate" to everyone mistakenly (I assume everything thinks she meant to say something more along the lines of "be special", or something like that). I certainly can't be considered a fan of Lohan AT ALL, but I am a fan of fairness and the truth. I think at least a sentence in the article is called for. It's not adding unnecessary information to mention that she meant the final line as a message to Altman. Why does this fact have to be mentioned on the NBC Nightly News to end up on this Wiki page? 69.180.248.219 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can write it in such a way that it does not presume to get inside her head (we know what she meant, but she's never said so, thus it's original research), I would not be adverse to a very brief addition. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 13 March paparazzo incident

Given the rep of the New York Post, I'm not entirely fond of the source for this edit but, strangely enough, it's the only version of this story to include actual research and is easily the most balanced presented to date (the Courier-Journal version attributes the quotes to the New York Daily News, which does not have the story online). I'll likely keep hunting for better sources as time passes, but I'm (barely) inclined to say this'll do for now. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can trust the sources that say she was reckless given the video of the event, don't you think? RadioKirk is a Lohan apologist and thuus violates NPOV. 65.164.51.130 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
See your talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove NPOV, it is because of you. Let an editor decide. 65.164.51.130 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag is inaccurate, reflecting an impression made by your edits; see your talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You've shown a history of putting a positive bias and removing reliable stories that put Lindsay in a negative light. Others should review because with as much as you edit the page positive bias turns the entire article into a virtual fan site. 65.164.51.130 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is one of the most neutral within Wikipedia, and is a featured article as a result. Now that you've made your latest attempt to somehow discredit me, let's expose you, shall we?
There is no longer any doubt of your efforts, and I will be requesting a checkuser to see which other accounts showing up out of nowhere on this talk page are also you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

===Why I'm going to pare this down to the bump I'd like comments on this, because I want to be sure that people with an agenda who pop up here to claim I have one don't have a leg, bruised knee or otherwise, to stand on.

The cited source (Access Hollywood, using a script apparently copyright NBC) includes a video that contradicts the story in several key areas, both substantial and sequential. The script suggests Lohan vehicle entry, drive-off, chase, police ticketing photogs, then the bump (I won't even mention the worst flop I've seen since Vlade Divac retired, because that's original research [grin]) after she somehow got back into the original vehicle. The video shows Lohan vehicle entry, inability to move due to crowd, attempt to move, photog on hood (utterly inconclusive as to whether he was already standing there or quickly moved to that position), vehicle exit, Lohan in back seat of "bodyguard[']s black SUV", EMTs helping photog (who, unmoving, somehow lies on his "bruised knee" without aggravation), then chase (in which the drivers of all three vehicles run red lights after stopping to make sure there's no cross traffic and otherwise not in a "reckless" fashion).

Among the questions: how can Lohan drive the SUV recklessly when the only evidence shows her in the back seat? Who said "recklessly" in the first place? Police? Witnesses? Lohan apologists (like me [sarcastic grin])? Haters? Anyone? (The statement goes unattributed.) How does Access Hollywood get a story from NBC when neither MSNBC nor WNBC carried the story in its online editions? Not even the never-does-its-own-investigation World Entertainment News Network mentions the "allegedly reckless" angle.

Once again, to ensure neutrality, I practically beg for comment. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced in "The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond"

Lindsay has been replaced in "The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond" by Bryce Dallas Howard: [6]. I keep trying to remove the credit from Lindsay's page but (hehe) someone keeps replacing it. Lindsay is no longer in the film and the credit needs to be removed. Caladonia

That's because, until now, no one has included a reliable source for removal of the data, as I've noted in the edit summary each time I've restored the data. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

I'd like to bring up the topic of Lindsay's alcoholism. Her mom insists Lindsay is not an alcoholic (snicker), but what (hehe) does everyone else here think? I mean, pretty much anybody who goes to rehab is an alcoholic and/or drug addict. -EJ220 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page on wikipedia, and it is to be used to discuss changes to the article, not the subject of the article itself. Thanks. –King Bee (τ • γ) 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is used for discuss the changes in order to improve this articles. Daniel 5127 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lindsay Lohan

Why the hell should I have to have an account to create this page? Lindsay Lohan is not FA-quality because it fails Wikipedia:Why stable versions, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV at the very least, and requires de-listing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.226.172 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 April 2007 UTC.

If you can provide me with some solid examples from the article then I will consider creating the review page on your behalf. The page has been created by User:Yamla. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Generally, I would advise that an anonymous user create an account if they wish to create a new article or place an article such as this up for review. In this case, though, I think the anonymous user raises some good points that deserve discussion. Additionally, I see no history of vandalism or WP:POINT violations from this particular address. All regular contributors (or vandalism reverters) to this article are encouraged to leave comments. The top of this page has more instructions. --Yamla 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. How about the repeated addition of anything resembling the drunken "firecrotch" spew? Step for Cep again? Stuart for Mitchell again? (Both cited, once...) How can Lohan and Duff have "reconciled" when both claimed there was no feud to begin with (source fails WP:RS anyway)? "Lindsay" for "Lohan" (we're on a first-name basis now?)? Dating a female DJ (WP:RS)? Film listings with no sources? A MySpace fan page? Crap like this gets in over and over and over and over again, so Wikipedia:Why stable versions goes out the window. Not an FA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.226.172 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Replaced in "The Best Time of Our Lives"

Lohan has been replaced by Sienna Miller in "The Best Time of Our Lives". The film needs to be removed from her wikipedia page as she is no longer in it: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963570.html?categoryid=19&cs=1 Caladonia

[edit] "Mean Girl" photo

Isn't that promotional photo actually for Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.46.145 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

No it's not, the Mean Girls pictures all had that lighting and makeup, just google it and you'll find it. Besides in Confessions she had lighter hair.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AtTheGatesOfBodom (talk • contribs)

Note, found a new and better photo then the one being used. Experienced issues putting it on and now it is a glorified mess. If anyone can help fix this it would be greatly appreciated.

[edit] Cocaine

What about Lohan's recently released toxicology? (as reported here, among other places: http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/28/lohan-allegedly-coked-up-during-car-crash)

Will there be a mention of the recent photos of Lohan taking cocaine? [7]DrugsRBadMkay 00:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a mention of the story, but it was sourced to a tabloid and did not include any pictures so I removed it. If you can find a credible source, by all means add it back in. We just need to be careful since this is a living person bio. Dchall1 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a site with pictures - http://thesuperficial.com/2007/05/lindsay_lohan_caught_snorting.php - I don't wanna edit the page on her, just letting someone who does want to know.{{unsigned|155.143.116.228}


Under the founding principle of wikipedia, subject neutrality, the widely documented uses of narcotics and alcohol abuses by this actress should be included in her bio. Along with the above link as proof, here are addition reputable sources of Lohan's public record detailing her abuse of alcohol, drunk driving, and cocaine use: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282007/entertainment/cops_release_lindsay_s_toxicology_report_entertainment_david_k_li.htm http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20044068,00.html http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/28/lohan-allegedly-coked-up-during-car-crash/ http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=275879 http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/0628lohan0628report-CR.html http://www.eonline.com/gossip/hum/detail/index.jsp?uuid=700bd278-3a9b-4cd9-8aba-4dd22770e261 http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6736957,00.html

Although I usually tolerate RadioKirk's apparent infatuation with Lindsey and do not comment the exclusion of this highly relevant information (do we next filter the drug use out of the bios for Jimmy Hendrix, Elvis, Anna Nicole, and others?) this is a public forum and subject NEUTRALITY must be observed on every issue or else wikipedia denegrates into nothing more than a 2nd rate MySpace forum.

[edit] returned

I have basically returned the article to it's featured version. Please discuss on this talk page any changes you want to make from here - and provide unquestionably reliable secondary sources for such changes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calum Best

[edit] Information

I do not think this information is notable especially for a encyclopedia!!


Lohan was voted #10 on the list of "100 Sexiest Women" by readers of FHM.[47] Maxim placed her at #3 on its 2006 Hot 100 list.[48]

In 2007, Lohan placed at #1 on the Maxim "Hot 100".[49] The list can be seen here.

[edit] the disturbing removal of the "health issues" section

Th "health issues" part of the article was removed on May 17 I believe. It should be obvious to anyone (even rabid fans) of Lindsay that the primary reason she is famous these days is not her career, but her lifestyle, which has resulted in her highly-publicised rehab treatment and numerous previous hospital visits. Lindsay's movie and music careers are in the doldrums - the vast majority of the press coverage she receives do not focus on her career.

Removal of the aforementioned material (copied below) amounts to censorship. It's clear the party responsible for taking it down has an agenda - wishing to paint a glowing portrait of Lindsay by attempting to sweep a multitude of issues under the carpet. It should be reinstated.


Lohan on the cover of Vanity Fair, in which she admitted some drug use (she later said her words were "misused") Lohan exhibited dramatic weight loss during 2005, which she attributed to "old-school working out."[66] Later, Lohan admitted that she "nearly died"[67] and said, "I'm working out with a trainer and eating healthily. I want my boobs back."[68] Lohan spent about two days at a Miami, Florida, hospital after suffering a serious asthma attack in January 2006.[69] That same week, Vanity Fair released an interview in which Lohan admitted using drugs "a little" (she denied ever using cocaine, calling it a "sore subject"). The article said she had recovered from "bulimic episodes", and that her 2005 hospitalization was for "a swollen liver and kidney infection".[70] Lohan later said she was "appalled" that her words were "misused and misconstrued" for the article; the magazine replied, "Every word [was recorded] on tape. Vanity Fair stands by the story."[71] In July 2006, Lohan was taken to a hospital while shooting Georgia Rule, complaining that she was "overheated and dehydrated"; Morgan Creek Productions CEO James G. Robinson had a letter delivered to Lohan in which he accused her of "all night heavy partying" and making up "bogus excuses", and threatened to take action to recover any "monetary damages".[72] Her mother later appeared on Access Hollywood to refute the accusation, saying her asthmatic daughter was working in 105-degree heat and calling Robinson's letter "way out of line."[73] People wrote in December 2006 that Lohan had been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in Los Angeles for a year, but she told the magazine that she hadn't gone public because "it's no one's business. That's why it's anonymous!" She said she had been going to clubs between film projects to get partying "out of my system, [but] I was going out too much and I knew that, and I have more to live for than that."[74] The following month, Lohan entered rehab at an undisclosed location "to take care of my personal health," asking that the media "please respect my privacy at this time."[75]She became an outpatient a short time later.[76] Lohan's representative told People that the actress had undergone an appendectomy on January 4, 2007.[77] She was videotaped the following day, trying to avoid photographers after she walked out of the hospital.[78]

202.122.132.4 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Hastings

Might be interesting to add a sentence about this: [8] [9]. Peter S. 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No reliable sourcing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

Ok There Is A HUGE mistake in this article. It Says "Lindsay Dee Lohan[1] (born July 2, 1986 to April,11 2007}" She did not die on April, 11 2007. This mistake should be corrected.

Thank You

Maybe they meant to say 2008?

[edit] Robot Chicken

I dont think that should be on it because it is just a parody and not something that she actually worked on.


[edit] Lindsay was ARRESTED AND IN REHAB

Why is that not on the article? Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie ALL have info on their personal problems and so should Lohan. POV

The accident/arrest is in there (not rehab, yet), crammed inconspicuously into the "Media spotlight" section as a portion of one paragraph. Everyking 11:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is her second time in rehab and it took seconds before Spears time in rehab was posted. Nothing on Lindsay in rehab. Too bad she was there back in January (to Feb) and is there now for over 3 days.

Added the section entitled Arrest and Rehab back in. It appears to be well-cited, so I don't see the issue. Ccrashh 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, well now it's in there twice. Literally, sentences are repeated. Where do you want the info in the article? –King Bee (τ • γ) 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...my mistake. From Strothra's comments, I thought he had deleted the section. Didn't realize he moved it. I think it should go under Arrest, since it is a little more serious than simple a "Media Spotlight" issue. Ccrashh 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. =) –King Bee (τ • γ) 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I apologize for that, should have said "moved." I took out the rehab portion though because it didn't provide any citations for that. Soapfan's edit was clearly violating WP:BLP as it did not provide citations even though it was providing a direct quote. Those things need proper citations, otherwise they are to be immediately removed without discussion per policy. Also, it shouldn't have it's own section, such a move provides the incident with undue weight. The importance of the material must be weighed against how it makes her notable. Lohan is clearly far more notable due to her film and music roles in pop culture than her personal life. Without her film and acting roles, her personal life would not give her any special notability that would set her apart from the general public. --Strothra 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if britney Spears gets her own "personal problems" section, so should Lohan. It looks like you are deliberately trying to make her look better because only her career is highlighted. lately, her films have been duds at the box office and she goes clubbing more than she does filming a movie. Rehab is VERY important about Lindsay since this is her SECOND time at the tender age of 20. Soapfan06

It is not up to fans to decide whether or not something like rehab should be included. The fact is, Lohan has been more known for her party life more than her career as an actress. People have stopped seeing her films and that should let you know what is important to add and what is not.

The poster above has a point. If anyone other celebrity's page has a separate section, why not this one? If Paris Hilton can have a section entitled "Legal Problems" why not Lindsay Lohan? Just curious as to the rationale behind similar events with differing results in Wikipedia. Ccrashh 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You can't compare one article to another. Just because one article has the section, does not mean that it should or that all others regarding notable individuals should. Again, Wiki has policies regarding undue weight and the content of the article must be geared toward why she is notable - ie her contributions. --Strothra 02:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This article appears totally irrelevant if it doesn't at least mention that she's currently in rehab. 66.237.109.194 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That makes no sense and is clearly an exaggeration. --Strothra 03:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Strothra, what you wrote regarding "...ie her contributions". So you are insinuating that Lohan hasn't contributed as much to popular culture as Paris Hilton? That is a sad barometer to decide what should and shouldn't be in an article, and how that article should be structured. So far, though you keep referencing Wiki policy, I have yet to see what particular policy to which you are referring. Care to point out which one has you so vehemently opposed to a separated "Legal Problems" section for Lohan? I am really curious. Ccrashh 11:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is contrary to everything I have said. Lohan's article should be seen as separate from other articles on other pop stars. Just because something is included in another article does not mean that it should be included in that article or in all articles. You are the one stating that something bad about Lohan should be included in this article simply because something bad is included in articles abt other pop stars. However, what I am stating is that articles in Wiki are included due to their subject's notability. Thus, articles focus about why they are notable. This is not just the letter of many policies, but also the spirit. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Policies such as WP:BLP have discussions of undue weight - meaning that while she may be in the media for her personal life, her notability resulting from her personal life should be weighed against the primary reasons for her being notable in the first place - ie her public career. I am arguing that giving an entire section to her personal legal problems is giving undue weight to the issue. It is, however, a part of the media spotlight on her and should be included, but within the media spotlight section. Since you are new to wiki, you may wish to review the following policies and guidelines: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:CITE. All of these are relevant to this issue. --Strothra 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Read through WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:CITE, since there are numerous sources, most of the policies you listed have been met. The only ones that might provide something relevant to our discussion are WP:NN and WP:BIO. Neither of these state that news about a "notable" person should not be added to the article if it isn't for what they are considered "notable". News is news. Now, if you don't think it merits its own section, so be it. However, constant removal of references (which have sources) about rehab etc. seems to not fall under any of the policies and guidelines you listed. Ccrashh 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has entered an appropriate acknowledgment of the event and source. --Strothra 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Lohan Censorship

Alright I know this has been mentioned a few times in other discussion topics but I really think we need it as a topic itself. What's the deal with censoring this page to hide the rehab the cocaine, etc. There's video of her doing cocaine and multiple friends accounts. She's been in rehab twice now. Who is it on here that keeps trying to hide everything cause this isn't minor stuff that's irrelevent, and I'm sick of seeing that someone keeps trying to make her seem as though she's some amazing actress rising to the top. Of all the stuff that's going on, the only thing that's shown is:

"Lohan's three car accidents in 2005 made headlines. The first was a minor rear-ender, though the victims later threatened to sue her.[41] She suffered minor injuries when a paparazzo who was following her for a photograph hit her car (police called the crash intentional, but prosecutors said there was not enough evidence to file criminal charges).[42] Lohan also struck a van in West Hollywood; police ruled that the van's driver made an illegal U-turn.[43] When VH1 named Lohan "Big 'It' Girl" for its 'Big' in '05 Awards in December, it was, Lohan quipped, "because being Big in '05 means getting in three car crashes in one year, people!".[44]. Lohan was involved in an accident again on May 26, 2007, during which the Beverly Hills Police Department arrested her and issued a summons for driving under the influence. The police discovered a "usable" quantity of a substance tentatively identified to be cocaine at the scene.[45]"

and that's mostly about the old car accidents! The truth has got to come out already.

Please see WP:BLP, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. If you can find information that meets all of these criteria and is notable (as would almost certainly be the case for at least most of these), it can be added. --Yamla 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I would rewrite it, but let's face it. There's a history of such material getting deleted, so I won't waste my time. The couple of people who keep deleting this information should write it or restore the old one, not ask others to do so when there has already been well-researched material written (see the old example above). 68.43.1.171 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Sean 5 June 07

Her second stint in rehab now has been documented everywhere....please someone cite a source and put it into the article. People might think Lohan gets special treatment when she shouldn't be. Spears, Richie and Hilton certainly don't when it comes to their articles.

THIS PAGE NEEDS A TIME OUT!

Apparently, Wikipedia has be bought by Fox, as aparent from the sanitization of this article.68.152.95.130 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This conversation needs to end actually. Jmlk17 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I recall from the FAC, there are a couple editors who apparently revere Lindsay as some kind of goddess and have historically refused to add anything negative, whether it be her accidental genitalia flash, drunk driving incidents, spat with other celebrities, work habits, or in this case, the arrest. Now that she's going to officially go to jail for at least one of these charges, perhaps the chokehold these weirdos have held on the article will finally be relented. It's almost as bad as Furry, in which the criticism section has been consistently censored or removed. Zeality 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Lohan's Publicists Sanitizing This Article?

It sure seems that way!

Doubt it :). Jmlk17 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PUBLIC REQUESTS THAT THIS ARTICLE BE UNLOCKED

The censorship of this public forum needs to end. Many people have put their time and energies into documenting solid facts of Cocaine abuse, drunk driving, alcohol abuse and other activities that while unflattering still merit listing within this article.

Please consider this the public request to have the article unlocked. Subsequent requests will go to reviewing board, with request to review Strothra and RadioKirks wiki admin privileges to see if they should be allowed to keep a mop & bucket if they cannot be trusted to adhere to the very founding pillars of wiki (POV, etc).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.156.223 (talk • contribs)

We are not admins. If you wish to edit the article then please register. --Strothra 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, please see WP:RFPP. However, you'll want to have read WP:BLP first; unless a claim of cocaine abuse meets the requirements outlined there, it must not be added to this page. So far, no sufficient source has been found. --Yamla 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source? How about these sources of Lohan's public record detailing her abuse of alcohol, drunk driving, and cocaine use: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282007/entertainment/cops_release_lindsay_s_toxicology_report_entertainment_david_k_li.htm http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20044068,00.html http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/28/lohan-allegedly-coked-up-during-car-crash/ http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=275879 http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/0628lohan0628report-CR.html http://www.eonline.com/gossip/hum/detail/index.jsp?uuid=700bd278-3a9b-4cd9-8aba-4dd22770e261 http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6736957,00.html

This is all highly relevant information (do we next filter the drug use out of the bios for Jimmy Hendrix, Elvis, Anna Nicole, and others?) this is a public forum and subject NEUTRALITY must be observed on every issue or else wikipedia denegrates into nothing more than a 2nd rate MySpace forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatswain1533 (talk • contribs)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a public forum - it is an encyclopedia. Further, there are guidelines and rules regarding biographies of living people, undue weight, and notability. Edits must conform to policies in both letter and spirit. Wikipedia is not a tabloid - please see WP:NOT. The content of an article focused on an individual must contribute to explaining the subject's notability. Thus, the content of the article must be weighted in light of the reasons for such notability. For instance, Lohan's notability comes primarily from her singing and film career. All other things, including criminal records, occurred subsequently to that primary notability and therefore get less attention. BLP policies cause us to err on the side of caution and veer away from issues that are controversial particularly when the subject's primary notability is not a result of those issues. --Strothra 22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Have to disagree with you on that last point. It's clear to most people she's just as famous right now for getting into trouble as she is for her singing and movie career. Just my two cents. 143.166.226.40 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ridiculous censoring of her unprofessionalism on set.

I came here to browse Lindsay Lohan's page for fun and come to find out virtually nothing negative is said about her. It's amazing because she has had a lot of negative actions worth mentioning. This isn't a eulogy or something, people come to wikipedia for reliable information. Painting her in a positive light despite the shady things she has done helps nobody. I at least expected to read about the backlash her unpofessionalism on set recieved her. The scathing comments by cast members and studio heads. I have all the sources ready, all I need is the go ahead to write it. For the past 4 years I have been studying journalism so I am confident I can write a non-biased section on these issues. What needs to be done to get the block on her page removed?

The Santa Monica Police Dept. has an official mug shot taken on July 24, 2007. One of the official charges on that date is bring a controlled substance (cocaine) into a jail facility.

Lott444 16:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Lott444

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you click the small padlock image on the top right of the article you will be taken to Wikipedia:Protection_policy where you can read more about what you can do. Essentially this article is semi-protected so you will need to be registered for five days before you can edit it. I strongly recommend you do stick around and edit the article if you have good sources and are willing to contribute good unbiased edits --PTSE 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Media Spotlight"?

Why are her repeated criminal offenses discussed under a section called 'media spotlight'? In almost every other article this kind of information goes under 'personal life.' 75.56.142.106 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it.--Tom 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing link to SCRAM bracelet product page

I thought about providing such a link too - since it's otherwise not clear what the attorney is talking about. But the External Links page does say that "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" should normally be avoided. Ribonucleic 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: [10] Terry Carroll 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Or one of these: [11], [12]. Terry Carroll 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[13] looks good. Thanks for the find. Ribonucleic 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Terry Carroll 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ERRONEOUS INFORMATION IN RECENT ARREST CONTENT

 The recent arrest info stated in the Wiki - A field sobriety test was conducted and she was subsequently arrested for DUI.

This is INCORRECT. It should read "She refused a sobriety test at the scene but was tested at the station according to Lt. Alex Padilla of the Santa Monica Police. The test found her blood alcohol between .12 and .13, he also said." article support from LA Times - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-ex-lohan24jul24,0,2835298.story?coll=la-home-localDalisair 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The following is an exact copy of the official Press Release issued on July 24, 2007 by the Santa Monica Police Dept.:

On Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 1:35 AM, the Santa Monica Police Department received a call of two vehicles chasing each other in the area of Main Street and Pico Boulevard. Officers responded to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium parking lot located at 1855 Main Street and upon arrival spoke with the drivers of two vehicles. The vehicle that was being chased was a 2007 black Cadillac Escalade and was being driven by the mother of Lindsay Lohan’s personal assistant. The other vehicle was a 2004 white GMC Yukon and was being driven by Lindsay Lohan.

While conducting a preliminary investigation at the scene, officers smelled alcohol on Lindsay Lohan’s breath. Lohan failed a field sobriety exam administered by the officers. Lohan was given the opportunity to take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test at the scene but refused. Lohan was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was transported to the Santa Monica Jail. While in the jail an alcohol breath test was administered to Lohan. The results of the alcohol breath test were .12% and .13%, which is above the California legal limit of .08%. During the booking process, officer’s found a small amount of cocaine in Lohan’s pocket.

Lohan was booked at the Santa Monica jail for driving under the influence, possession of a controlled substance and for driving with a suspended/revoked driver’s license. At 6:20 A. M. Lohan’s attorney arrived at the Santa Monica Police Department and posted $25,000 bail. Lohan was released on bail.

The text presently reads:
In the pre-dawn hours of 24 July 2007, the Santa Monica police received a 911 call from a car being driven by Michelle Peck - whose daughter, Tarin Graham, several hours previously, left her employment as Lohan's personal assistant. Peck reported that she was being chased by a white GMC and feared for her safety.[64] The police later found Peck and Lohan having a "heated debate" in the parking lot of the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Lohan refused to take a breathalyzer test, but agreed to other field sobriety tests. After failing these tests, she was taken to a police station where her blood alcohol level was tested at between 0.12 and 0.13 percent - above the California legal limit of 0.08 percent.
Car driven by Peck. Lohan gets a sobriety test. (For being a passenger?) There's a legal limit of 0.08 in California for engaging in "heated debate"? Whatever the truth, conceptual continuity in this passage sucks. If the law reads "legal limit for operating a motor vehicle" law enforcement might choose to establish her sobriety at the scene in advance of determining her status as operating a motor vehicle (in that condition or worse), but failing to do that in due process, Lohan would no longer be over any legal limit I'm aware of (general public intoxication?) As a side note, in the jurisdiction where I live--during the 1980s at least--it was required to prove DWI that the police obtain two readings over the legal limit with the second reading lower than the first reading, otherwise it was possible for the defense to argue that the blood alcohol level while driving had remained below the legal limit because the alcohol was still in the stomach and had not yet entered the blood stream. As presently written, this passage seems to imply that the standard has fallen to the level of having alcohol on your breath near a vehicle recently operated is all that it takes to violate the "legal limit". MaxEnt 05:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverting Strothra's deletion

The significant amount of material deleted by this editor was, in my opinion: A) properly sourced, B) neutrally presented, and C) proportional to both the subject's current notability in general and the 2007 biography section in particular. As such, I am reverting the deletion. If they believe that other sections of the article are being overshadowed by this material, it would be more appropriate for them to contribute to those sections - rather than remove the work of others. Ribonucleic 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Who is covering up the fact theres a clear video of her snorting coke and the fact she has been yelled at by studio execs for being late and hung over while on the set as well as being fired. The main article is either being edited by her yes man team/managers/publicists or someone living their life through hers

[edit] Suicide?

Is this just shameless vandalism? Where is the source? ... Something tells me it could be real? I'm not sure. If so, I'm a little heartbroken, I have advance screening passes to her new movie X_X 68.30.114.31 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) July 26th, 3:46 a.m.


Well then, the vandalism continues to only a single sentence on a page. Admins/mods help!

Well now, the URL goes back to LL's page ... what in the world is going on with this suicide story ?

If there was even a remote possibility of it being true, TMZ.com would have already put up 7 posts about it. :-) As of 11:23 AM Eastern Time, nothing. Whatever the young lady's problems are, being dead is not currently one of them. Ribonucleic 15:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donata "Dina" Sullivan Lohan: Rockette?

If there are no credible citations attesting to her Rockette job, shouldn't this be removed?Rosiestephenson 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That, ah, "unsubstantiated" claim from White Oprah tells me a lot about her - and, by extension, the subject of the article. I'd vote to keep it in. Ribonucleic 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'''It was confirmed by the Rockette company that she was never a Rockette.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.193.202 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Futures Traders: private company vs. misnamed organization?

I haven't been able to find a company or organization called "New York Futures Traders". Is this a private business, hence no internet presence? Or was Michael Lohan president of "New York Mercantile Exchange", which trades futures? Or is there another cited explanation about what "New York Futures Traders" is?Rosiestephenson 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Leno

She was suppose to be on his show on the day of her arrest. Should that fact be added?--97.84.1.91 03:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would vote 'No'. It doesn't seem necessary to add that fact.Doktor Waterhouse 13:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fake email

How soon till we find out that she never sent that email? Anyways, --Tom 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to tweek that sentence. Sorry for being a skeptic, but I don't believe a thing on the WWW :). --Tom 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The assistant and her mother

According to this http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/2007/07/27/lohan-on-tail-of-star-therapist-89520-19528749/ the assistant is named Tarin Graham, and her mother is respected beautician Michelle Peck. Could someone insert those names, to make the story a bit hard to follow? It also explains the reference to Tarin in the e-mail quoted at the end.

Done. Good suggestion.Ribonucleic 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah banner

The subject is listed in the List of celebrities involved in the Kabbalah Centre. On that basis, the banner was added. Also, it was rated as "B" because, actually, assessments are regarding the relative completeness of the article, and having nothing to do with, as it were, whether any particular group or project thinks "their" content is included. The article has received a "B-Class" rating from the Biography project already; I also reviewed it and saw that, with the possible exception of "breaking stories", it does seem to be largely complete, which is the criteria for "B-Class" status. I actually am rather less invovled in the developing the content of the Kabbalah project than others right now, so I may not be working on the article myself anytime soon unless specifically requested to do so. However, I do know that the project will at least consider posting bios relevant to the project on the Portal:Kabbalah, and it is included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah/watchlist, where members can monitor it for vandalism and other changes. Also, I note that Kabbalah has several rather unusual symbols which may, perhaps, appear on something related to the individual. The members of that project would probably be the best ones to explain such a symbol, were it to figure into the biography in some way. John Carter 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If lohan is involved with kabbalah the sources are pretty slim. I found this [14]
"While some fads come and go, this trend just keeps growing. In fact, just last week, teen sensation Lindsay Lohan was spotted wearing her red string."
Being seen once with a red string is far from being a Kabbalah Centre regular. I have not been able to find anything more substantial. Jon513 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree with you about the red string. Half the kids at the local school wear them too, and I am certain only a tiny fraction of them are Kabbalah believers. Risker 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've requested that the other members of the Kabbalah project find specific sources indicating that all those individuals included on their list of celebrities associated with the Kabbalah Centre be individually referenced and that related content be added to the articles on the individuals to substantiate their connection. I'm not sure how quickly that's going to be done, though. John Carter 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 24, 2007 arrest

Why is there no mention of the allegations that she hijacked the car with the two guys in it, running over the third guy's foot in the process? Ophois 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe because we don't have a reliable source for the allegations? Or, if we do have said sources, because no-one's gotten around to putting it into the article? Tabercil 23:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, don't get an attitude. It's been nearly a month since the incident, and I was merely asking why half of the reported incident wasn't included in the article. A quick google search found these articles: (http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/zap-lindsaylohancarcommandeer911,0,2305688.story) (http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/27/lindsay-i-wasnt-driving-the-black-kid-was/96) (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/27/ng.01.html) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070728/cm_huffpost/058206) Ophois 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aug 24, 2007 Information is Incorrect

The article on Lindsay Lohan states that on Aug. 24, 2007: "She was charged with 1 Day in Jail etc." It should read: "On Aug. 24, 2007, she was sentenced to one day in jail etc." How can you charge someone with 1 day in jail?204.80.61.110 19:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

[edit] Study in Europe? I don't think so

This article makes it sound as though Lohan is definitely going to study in Europe, but if you check the source, it comes from a single quote her mother tossed off at a PR event. Her mother is not at all a reliable source (she's been claiming for two years that she herself is on the verge of getting her own television show, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.236.246 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DINA

Should be on a different page like Michael I wrote a page on Dina Lohan, so don't worry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is rediculosly bias

I can not find one negative thing about her. POV violations everything.Patcat88 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2004-2005 auto accidents in "Personal life" section

I reviewed the citations yesterday for the three 2005 auto accidents, wanting to better define them with Month/Year/Location data on each. The first citation's link worked, but the article, written in 2005, stated accident#1 occurred in 2004, so I made the appropriate copyedit. The citation links for accident#2 and accident#3 don't work anymore. I'll do some research later on, but if someone already has Month/Year/Location info, please make the copyedit to include citations. Thank you. Rosiestephenson (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Besides the 2004 accident, I found citations for an October 2005 car accident, and a November 2006 car accident. I've updated the article with the dates/locations. I wasn't able to find info on other 2004-2006 car accidents. Rosiestephenson (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gossip about Lindsay Lohan and sex addiction

  • The reference source provided with the intention of adding information to this article is pure unmitigated gossip. Her former lover is not an expert on sex addiction and is not qualified to diagnose her. As well, the remainder of his screed is unverified and unverifiable. I have deleted the link, changed the name of this thread, and removed other commentary in accordance with WP:BLP Section 3.2. Risker (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an external link with most recent and updated news about Lindsay Lohan

[spam link deleted]

This sites gathers from various sources all the recent about Lindsay Lohan. In my opinion it would be cool to have a link that points to such a resource —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damirsecki (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an internet tabloid. It doesn't indicate where it gets it's information. It is inappropriate, per WP:EL. Do not add it as an external link or use it as a source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Ward3001 (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Please look my answer to you in the britney spear's article. I am of strong opinion the link should stay. Damirsecki —Preceding comment was added at 08:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The Brandon Davis Scandal

Upon reinstatement of this article, the famous downfall of their relationship, culminating in his public tirade in which the word "firecrotch" was introduced into the public lexicon, must be documented. Film magazine Empire rated the incident in its Top 50 events of 2007, songs have been written about the topic, and it was an eerie foreshadowing to the break-up and subsequent breakdown of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.209.2 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay As Marilyn (Caution: Nudity)

You may want to include this in the main article:

Topless Lindsay As Marilyn: http://media.nymag.com/fashion/08/lindsay-as-marilyn/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.196 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How, exactly, are you proposing that this information should be included? I don't see the point in posting nude photos (and unattractive at that) of Lohan in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Activism section

Since that section consists of nothing but Lindsay's run-in with PETA last year, it should be added that PETA was not impressed with her repudiation of fur last year, and has once again put her on its 'worst dressed list' (February 2008) 75.58.187.236 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Source, please. With a complete citation. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:A Little More Personal (Raw) album cover.jpg

Image:A Little More Personal (Raw) album cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Lohan Third Untitled Album

hi please put in this information in Lindsay Lohan Thir Untitled Album she states that her album is a Dance, Hip Hop and R&B album her is my source [[15]] and that she wants it to be like Kylie Minogue-meets-Rihanna a dance sound source [[16]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom10194iscool (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] llrocks.com vs. lindsaylohanmusic.com

I've noted this controversy before, and saw some reverts today.

The registration for llrocks.com is

c/o Dinah Lohan PMB 179
223 Wall Street
Huntington, New York 11743-2060
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: LLROCKS.COM
Created on: 08-Apr-98
Expires on: 07-Apr-10
Last Updated on: 01-Apr-08
Administrative Contact:
Sullivan, Donald dsullivan@zoeo.com
PLI Software
5848 RIDGE RD
CLEVELAND, Ohio 44129-3166
United States
xxx-xxx-xxxx Fax -- xxx-xxx-xxxx
Technical Contact:
Sullivan, Donald dsullivan@zoeo.com
PLI Software
5848 RIDGE RD
CLEVELAND, Ohio 44129-3166
United States
xxx-xxx-xxxx Fax -- xxx-xxx-xxxx


www.lindsaylohanmusic.com is

Registrant:
UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP
UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP
1755 Broadway:
New Media
New York, NY 10019
US
newmedia@umusic.com
001-212-3730600 Fax: 001-212-3312474
Domain Name: LINDSAYLOHANMUSIC.COM
Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc.
Administrative Contact:
UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP
UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP
1755 Broadway
New Media
New York, NY 10019
US
newmedia@umusic.com
001-212-3730600 Fax: 000-000-0000000

So, all told, it's pretty clear to me that lindsaylohanmusic.com is an official corporate site owned by her record company, and it should be listed.

However, it isn't certain to me that llrocks.com is "just a fan site". It's registered to Dinah Lohan, and, last I heard, Dinah still acted as Lohan's manager.

Kww (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)



[edit] New movie and Leggings line

Can someone please add the following to the article


New movie titled "Labor Pains" [17]

No. Filming has not begun. See WP:CRYSTAL. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New Leggings line [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.71 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No. They're not being sold yet, and on the notability scale, it's quite low. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Lohan walks away from Manson Girls

Can someone remove the manson girls info from the "return to acting" section.....cause Lohan will not be in it anymore..[19]

There may need to be an addition to the article, but not necessarily a removal. The article says "E! News has also recently reported Lohan's involvement in the movie Manson Girls". That's not inaccurate. Ward3001 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


but it should be mentioned that lohan will no longer be in it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent999 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


why is everyone so slow on wiki......it doesnt take time to edit a small section


i try to keep the page up to date........and u just ignore me like im saying crap........what part of shes not gonna be in the movie anymore dont u understand.........do u like wiki to be not up to date??....whats wrong with u people....i would do it myslef but this article need a 4day old account,and im not yet......so, please just edit that article..and remove the manson girls part,or say she's not gonna be in it anymore........cuase thats a fact......link above....... i think if nobody edits it, then nobody really cares about wikipedia the way i thought they did.....Agent999 (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] third album release date

and on the "untitled third album" section.....instead of "it will be released mid or end of 2008.......put it will be released early Fall...[20]

MySpace is not an official source. Ward3001 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

why is everyone so slow on wiki......it doesnt take time to edit a small section

I responded quickly ... when I saw someone had created an article about her mythical third album, I nominated it for deletion within minutes. As for it's release date, Lohan has demonstrated that she is a completely unreliable source about what is coming up in her career.Kww (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

puta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.58.125 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mink coat case

I added this Manhattan court case: A New York City college student, Maria Markova, 22, sued Lindsay Lohan, at the Manhattan's state Supreme Court on May 19, 2008 of stealing her $ 12,000 golden sheared mink coat while in the nightclub 1 Oak on January, 26.ap.google.com, Lawsuit accuses Lindsay Lohan of stealing mink coat --Florentino floro (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed this for the time being. Read WP:RECENT. There's no reason this can't wait a couple of weeks to see if it develops into something significant or is little more than tabloid gossip. Ward3001 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbianism/Samantha Ronson

Photos have recently been released that show Lindsay embracing/kissing/holding hands with DJ Samantha Ronson. This has only seemed to fuel the lesbian rumors. Can anyone shed any light? There was once some discussion regarding her sexual orientation on the talk page here--where did it go? 74.73.105.19 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


why was this undone? Is this not a valid point of discussion? Is someone censoring this page? If this isn't the place for discussion as to what should or should not be included here, what is? 74.73.105.19 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357802,00.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/05242008/news/nationalnews/lohans_ladies_night_112294.htm 74.73.105.19 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the discussion can stay. Don't put into the Lindsay Lohan article unless it moves beyond the rumor status. Ward3001 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't quite see how discussing lesbianism is defamatory. It's quite backward to insinuate that "accusing" someone of being a lesbian is defamatory, considering this would never be the case if she were lesbian and someone were to claim she were straight. 74.73.105.19 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing lesbianism in general is not defamatory. Insinuating something about someone that could be controversial without solid sources can be libelous, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia when it references a living person. Rumors can be discussed on the talk page as long as they are identified in the mainstream media. Putting something that is a rumor in an article generally is not acceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Issues such as this one can wait a while to see where they go before adding to an article. This whole thing with Lohan could be history in a few days. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


There are articles in the Times of India, and the Boston Herald, confirming that Lohan wants to marry Ronson

"Lohan has not only told friends she wants to have a partnership ceremony with Ronson at Dolly Parton’s theme park, Dollywood, in July, but that she’s already starting to call her herself Lindsay Ronson. ", http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Entertainment/International_Buzz/Lindsay_wants_to_marry_lesbian_lover/articleshow/3080115.cms

http://news.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2008_05_28_LiLo_heading_to_chapel_with_lady_love_/srvc=home&position=also

No mention of this on the page at all...

Adivkumar (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Still rumour only at this point. We're in no rush to add information about this to the article... we can wait for more concrete information to come forth. Tabercil (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small Changes

In the infobox, it says Casablanca (2005 - 2007) that should be changes to Casablanca (2004 - 2007) cause lohan signed with Casablanca in 2004...[21] ................

In the Acting Career , there is

  • 2.1 Early career
  • 2.2 Career developement (i think this one should be named "Breakthrough success and Career development"
  • 2.3 Return to acting

................

A new section should be created, it should be named "Products and endorsements"

cause now Lohan is the new face for Visa Swap [22]

.....................

Labor pains should be added in the Filmography section, cause it already started filming.....[23]


...............

FSFS (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Products and endorsements": Disagree. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. There is a "Business" section, and that's enough. Celebrities have thousands of "products and endorsements", most of which are not notable and would unnecessarily add lengthy fluff to articles. Ward3001 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Note to involved editors:
FSFS (talk · contribs) is more than likely a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs) who has a history of inserting this sort of information into articles about celebrities and becoming very confrontational with other editors who disagree with him. Brexx's last confirmed sockpuppet OOC OCD (talk · contribs) was a prime example of this type of behaviour as can be evidenced by his contributions. There is an RFCU case in place here that will confirm or deny that FSFS is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user and, therefore, they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this Article so Long?

Really...especially the personal life section, and do we need to subsections with lengthy details on individual arrests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchonihilist (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)