Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

breast implants widely reported, really?

I don't believe it was widely reported lindsay allegedly got breast implants, please cite (enough mainstream citations to be consided "widely" plz). I also don't think breast implant info is appropriate in the article, how many celebs have breast implants, does wikipedia flag each one? It's certainly not appropriate in the introduction, and the link to the "visual aid" website is most egregious. I'll remove that section myself unless I hear counter arguments. Zen Master 19:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, but I hear it all the time, and I'm pretty sure she's denied it herself, which she wouldn't do unless it was widely reported. And, I mean, just look at her. Sure it's important. The people want to know. Everyking 20:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fanboi message boards do not count as "widely reported". :-) Since she has officially denied it I don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia, it's also borderline sexist the way it's currently presented. How many other movie star bio pages have claims of fake breasts? So "encyclopedic" has degenerated into "the people want to know"? Such gossip has no place on wikipedia, I think we should put removing the mention of possible fake breasts up for a vote. Zen Master 21:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That was a rumor and has not been proven or disproven; it was never "widely reported"—it wasn't even reported at all except in tabloids, which have little to no crediblity. Stephe1987 00:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

All significant, publicly available information about notable people has a place, and certainly that includes the implant claim. I'm sorry if you don't like that the implant claim is notable, but it unquestionably is. Everyking 21:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notable does not negate sexist nomenclature. Please cite a mainstream/non-message board website that claims lindsay lohan's brests are fake? At this point it's at best a rumor, not public information. Do you agree "widely reported" is inaccurate at least? Zen Master 22:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not really, I've heard it joked about on television before. I think a great many people who are familiar with Lindsay know about the implant claim. I don't see how it's sexist nomenclature, it's just saying she may have had implants. A simple statement. We could have a poll, but I don't know if we'd get enough votes to be worth anything. If it really matters to you, you could list it on RfC and that might attract enough votes. Everyking 22:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The current statement is fine. It says what you want to say, yet remains ambiguous to the reality (or non-reality) of it.--Txredcoat 22:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

breast implant rumors are uncited and don't belong anyway

Everyking, please cite from a reputable source the allegations for the breast implant rumors. If the allegations came from a plastic surgeon then I'd agree they would meet the threashold for inclusion in a wikipedia article. I also think that is a double standard, how many celebrity biographical articles on wikipedia include breast implant rumors? In my opinion breast implant rumors are not notable for a *biographical* article; a biographical article is not a fanboi message board. I will definitely remove that paragraph again if you do not cite where those rumors came from and clean up the writting stlye. Though, I may revert it anyway and/or I will take this issue up on RFC or irc or find others to comment here.

You know, I didn't add it to begin with. I don't understand your reasoning. I've heard about the implants on many occasions, and I'm certainly no "fanboi". It's an occasional topic in American popular culture. Therefore it's notable. I'd like to see some other opinions on the matter, though. Everyking 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • To have any chance at inclusion you need to cite your source(s).
  • You would also need to rewrite the article in NPOV style (use the word allegedly). The way that paragraph is written is from the point of view of a fanboi or anti fanboi (or perhaps a breast implants fanboi).
  • You will also need to justify, using a logical argument here on the talk page, why a *biographical* article should include breast implant rumors. American popular culture does not automatically mean *biographical* article inclusion.
zen master T 00:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are being unreasonable because you know the rumors are widespread and therefore it's disingenuous to demand sources for verification. Yes, we should have sources. But that doesn't mean we need to delete it in the meantime. Many, many Wikipedia articles have no sources at all. You going to go blank them all, or VfD them? My logical argument is that A) lots of people (pretty much any American with any awareness of contemporary pop culture) have heard the rumors, they've been talked about on TV, etc., B) widespread recognition equals fame, C) fame equals notability. It makes no sense to have an article about Lindsay but omit one of the things she's best known for. Everyking 01:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Everything needs a cited source so it can be counter balanced with precision. If other articles have similar problems we should clean them up also. I support Adam Bishop's clean up of the paragraph you added. In 75 years when Lindsay Lohan is dead and gone what will the relevance of modern day breast implant rumors for a general *biographical* article be? zen master T 01:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't like Adam's removal of info, but in the absence of a cite I'll live with it. And for the last time, quit saying I added it—I did not, I merely cleaned it up a bit, and if I had added it there would be cites, since I'm a stickler for references. As for the future thing, I imagine anybody interested in knowing about her then is as likely to want to know about the implants as they are about her album or acting roles—perhaps moreso? Everyking 01:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you really want to keep this, I'll see if I can find some newspaper sources tomorrow, this seems like the sort of trashy news the entertainment sections would write about (I won't be able to give a link, but it will be a source at least). I know they also made reference to it on SNL when she was on. And here's a fun link for everyone!. But seriously, how do you know her breast size before and after? That's crazy. Adam Bishop 03:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A brief search finds "LOHAN LIVING LARGE AS TEEN QUEEN" by Donna Freydkin of Gannett News Service: "But the fame has brought added scrutiny, which lands her in the tabloids on a weekly basis. The stories about her abound: Her father makes news with another legal scuffle! She has implants! Her partying is out of control!" and "As for the plastic surgery chit-chat: "The fake-boob thing was kind of silly. They're so real. Lindsay's so afraid of doctors -- a needle freaks her out," says Dina [her mother and manager]." So it has been in actual printed news... Adam Bishop 08:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, some gossip and denials of gossip have been in some actual printed insubstantial published fluff. Does this make the topic encyclopedic to WP standards? Clearly there are some fans who find this subjectively "notable", and who seem well-qualified to flesh out (oops, didn't mean to make that pun) some fansite's article about this young and not-yet-proven-exceptional actress. But, unless there's a weeks-long trial that alters the reporting of national news, or a scandal that makes a government fall, I don't accept that there is anything about breast-implant rumors (true or false, verifiable or otherwise) that belongs in WP. Barno 20:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What the..? Lindsay hasn't altered reporting of national news or brought down any governments yet, so I guess she shouldn't have an article, then? Everyking 22:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, what about [this]? Al 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please—there simply isn't the sudden, sharp line of relief you see in women with implants. I put a lot more stock in the fact that she suddenly was sullen-chested after she lost all that weight and, now that she's gained an almost-healthy amount of it back (grin), she has a chest again. That's all the evidence you need. RadioKirk talk to me 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is weight loss truly notable?

I'm just wondering. The gossip of the day for a celebrity is not necessarily notable enough for inclusion in an encylopedia, in my opinion. It's also presented as gossipy using third parties "noting" it, the article should state, with a citation, that Lindsay has confirmed losing like 10-20 pounds in the spring of 2005 (since I believe she has confirmed that?). But if she puts back on some weight should we then remove any mention of the weight loss? Either way, where does it end? If she lost or gained weight for a movie roll then that would be notable, but initial rumors of an eating disorder are not notable, if it goes on for a few weeks then maybe inclusion is ok (all in my opinion). zen master T 22:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I was reading in People mag recently about it (I think it was in People), so I think that makes it notable. Not to mention all the talk about it outside of publications, on the internet and such. Probably it has also been mentioned on some TV show as well. Everyking 04:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
We have a section on recent weight loss as well, this time with rumours of cocaine use. Can someone provide some citation on this one from a location that isn't purely a rumour or trash magazine? If so, I'm happy to have it stay, but we are teetering on the edge of libel and pushing away from encyclopedic information. --Yamla 15:04, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Sources?

Any sources/refs for her plans to model w/Vogue (Film) and do a song with Alsou (Music)? --AnOddName 18:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done an exhaustive search; no corroboration I can find, so, begone ;) RadioKirk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A Prairie Home Companion

We may have to keep an eye on this one: Picturehouse bought the distrib, and recommended the title be changed from The Last Broadcast back to APHC. Garrison Keillor, the radio show's host and writer, said at the buyers' screening that another alternative, Savage Love, was being discussed to broaden the film's appeal. Picturehouse was not hot on the idea... RadioKirk 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Confessions is at #66

Confessions of a Broken Heart (Daughter to Father) debuted at #66 on the Billboard Hot 100. This makes it her first and only Hot 100 hit. Rumors made #106 and Over faired slightly better at #101. First failed to chart however.

Cite the source here, and it can stay in the article. RadioKirk 18:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The source is billboard.com the billboard hot 100

Not according to the information I found there today. And great, let us assume that the information is correct. You are then free to add it to the article so long as you cite it properly, along with the appropriate date. --Yamla 23:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Turns out I was looking at the wrong information, I was looking at the top 200 rather than the hot 100. However, the hot 100 (or at least, the bottom half of the top 100) is only available online to subscribers, at quite a high cost. Please find a more reasonable reliable source. Thanks. --Yamla 23:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This listing (especially the seemingly newer figure, #58) continues to be included with no citation. I will continue to remove it until I see a link that I can follow without a subscription to get verification. RadioKirk 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Found it, finally... RadioKirk 17:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nipple slip?

Anyone want to make reference to http://www.weff.com/images/nipslip.jpg ? I realize it's a bit unencyclopedic, but it created a *huge* stir on several fan sites. If not, oh well... you just saw 17-year-old Lindsay Lohan's nipple! Aren't you glad you read this?

"(A) bit"? I say leave the boys to their own devices... ;) RadioKirk 04:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, since this keeps popping up (oops... sorry), I think I've managed to write a tactful (and correctly brief) way to deal with the nipslips. Feel free to let me know... RadioKirk 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Coke head - was/is

friend of mine found her wallet outside a dance studio in new york. in it was a few grams of coke.

This claim is specious. Period. It's amazing how many people are "friends" with the person who "found" her wallet, and this person's claims are suspect to begin with [1]. Lohan herself notes that she could not abuse drugs because she's seen what abuse does to people like her own father [2]. Even were the drug claim factual, its encyclopedic value is dubious; without citation, it won't stay in at all. RadioKirk 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a little note, when she (Lindsay) was in New Orleans in the spring/summer of 2004 to film a movie, her exploits were daily fodder for the Times Picayune's Living Section. On an almost nightly basis, she (Lindsay) was getting wasted (drunk) and partying (including dancing on tables, etc.) on Bourbon Street and in French Quarter bars. Her behavior was constantly causing production delays according to media reports (The Times Picayune). Thus any claims on her part that she could never abuse drugs seem dubious at best to me...given that alcohol is a drug, and she certainly was no stranger to it when she was in The Big Easy in 2004. Amazing behavior given that she has yet turn the ripe old age of 21.

alcohol is not technically a drug and whats wrong with her wanting to have fun? what is she supposed to do with her downtime while on location? Curefreak 10:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Curefreak

"Alcohol is not technically a drug" -- where did you get that idea?! Try reading Wikipedia's article on alcohol. Here's a quote from the Uses section: "Alcohol is a drug, with potential for overdose or toxic poisoning if taken in excessive quantities." In fact, it's one of the most abused drugs in the world. -Phoenixrod 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A Little More Personal couldn't sale more than 100.000

Yeah because the cd debut at #20, and Mariah Carey's Emancipation is at number 6 selling a little more than 150.000 so, lindsay's confessions have sold less than 150.000 copies, SO ERASE THAT jaja 261.000 you have to be kidding

by the way, i dont think the cd is being succesfull in other countries, so is imposible that it has sold that worldwide

You can learn how to cite information by reading the WP:CITE page. --Yamla 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yamla is correct; if you include a reputable, verifiable (without a subscription) source that overrules the source currently cited, then the information will be used—but not before. RadioKirk 17:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, I need to relearn how to read [blush] RadioKirk 20:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too. And a vacation. Still, do we have a source that gives current sales numbers? The previous citation did not, it only listed sales in the first week or something. It wasn't a great source anyway. --Yamla 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
That was the only one I'd found... but people keep posting the same numbers, invariably. I'll keep looking as I have time... RadioKirk 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it was far better than no source at all, which is what we had before, it is just that it wasn't a great source. But everyone who is updating the numbers seems to have a more specific source because they are posting different (and higher) numbers. It's all very frustrating. --Yamla 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Billboard.com just updated, it is #20, still searching for sales figures RadioKirk 21:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, found the rollingstone.com page with the numbers... good enough for me :) RadioKirk 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks, RadioKirk. --Yamla 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, I should mention that, if people would ever learn to cite their sources in the first place, other people would need a lot less Ibuprofen ;) RadioKirk 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Second single?

According to the main Lindsay article, the second single from RAW will be "I Live For The Day", same as it was announced by mtv.com a few days ago, but according to the RAW CD article it's going to be Cheap Trick's cover "I Want You To Want Me", so wich one will it be? Probrable "I Live For The Day" because it's already gaining spins on the radios... So someone might edit the CD information...

Thanks for the heads up! Fixed. Gflores Talk 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Discography

Shouldn't the soundtracks for freaky friday and confessions be listed in the discography. She sang in both of them and had music videos (I think).Gflores Talk 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I was under the impression that soundtracks and compilations do not count toward an individual artist's discography, but I could be wrong... RadioKirk 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm actually not sure, but I feel there should be some mention of it in the discography section to show that Speak wasn't actually her first professional singing experience. Whitney Houston's discography has soundtracks listed, but Simple Plan has a subheader under discography. I think the latter is a better solution. Gflores Talk 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the subheader idea. RadioKirk 18:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A new Face for Chanel

I read in a Lindsay Lohan fan Page that she is going to work whit Chanel, and that she is going to be their new face, isnt that important and where could that information be posted. Hilaryboy00 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source, and not just a rumour, feel free to post that. That would probably go under her modeling section. Thanks for contributing. Gflores Talk 15:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that im latino, and my english is not the best, so someone can post that??Hilaryboy00 15:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This is in several sources, mostly overseas (from the US) so far... but, I also spotted this so, perhaps, holding off for confirmation would be good... RadioKirk 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

ALMP(R) falls to #46

source RadioKirk 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RIAA and sales figures?

An editor seemed to suggest that the search page at the RIAA website is the source for updated sales figures for Speak; I can find only the Gold and Platinum certification dates. Am I missing something? RadioKirk talk to me 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, you've gathered all of the information you're capble of retrieving. However, I could possibly be wrong; perhaps you haven't located the information you're searching for. —Empty Wallow | Wollaw Ytpme 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, someone's finding numbers somewhere—at least, I'm presuming they're not being culled from someone's stool samples—but I can't find them at any reputable source without a subscription, which is the criterion ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FOXNews link for 202,000 ALMP(R) figure

To be honest, this is a gossip column; a quick search, however, suggests Roger Friedman has a decent rep. I'm inclined to leave it up, for the moment... RadioKirk talk to me 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake in reverting this. I was looking at the edits backwards so it seemed to me that cited information was being replaced with uncited information and a comment specifically requesting decent information was being reverted. I have reverted my reversion. --Yamla 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that was confusing; the editor added the source following the comment. I just moved it to the proper spot. RadioKirk talk to me 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The New Girl

This "project" was originally mentioned for 2005; clearly, that didn't happen. Based on its supposed synopsis, this appears to be part of an unsubstantiated rumor that's been resurrected a few times with different titles, each time involving Hilary Duff as the one who supposedly "lost" the role to Lohan. I suspect there's a high likelihood that this "project" was made up from the get-go. RadioKirk talk to me 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. Recently while at IMDB I did dome research on the movie and "Shaun Landers". It seems suspicious that he/she so quickly was able to get a co-starring role with such big names. So we got to the conclusion that he/she must have made up the title him/herself. I have no solid proof other than that though. Arianna Chanel 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this one has been dusted off and regurgitated again, this time with the title Outward Blonde. Anything Duff "lost" to Lohan—or in which they star together—should be viewed with the appropriate grain of salt. RadioKirk talk to me 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Kate Moss business...

I, for one, will nuke this crap the instant I see it. Those of you capable of critical thought will already have figured out that the last two piece-of-trash articles on Lindsay (including the friend supposedly photographed taking her a preg test in the hospital in a clear plastic bag [her friends aren't that stupid]—and, why have they "seen" this photograph but not published it, may I ask?) came from that bastion of journalism, the New York Post ('nuff said). Also, you may note, this is supposed to have happened in the same club where her father supposedly got so shit-faced that he passed out at the bar? Please... RadioKirk talk to me 00:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Meantime, among my wholesale rewrites with FA quality in mind, I worry that paragraph two of "spotlight" drops too many names (I readded Bruce Willis to demomstrate the wide-ranging effect of the rumors). Thoughts? RadioKirk talk to me 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
In the end, I'm not sure there's any way around the name dropping. Lohan herself seems to court this attention. I was thinking maybe splitting the paragraph up into two parts but upon rereading it, I don't think that is appropriate. --Yamla 20:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This article does better than average on the external links. There's no doubt the official website and the Casablanca web site should stay. The list of fan sites is also specifically allowed. I do question whether we should allow the picture archive to stay in, though. I don't think it adds anything that a quick google search wouldn't. Additionally, I think the following categories are superfluous: "Roman Catholics" (because of "Roman Catholic musicians"), "American television actors" (because of "American soap opera actors", though this is less clear). --Yamla 20:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, shiitake mushrooms! Who snuck in the "picture archive when I wasn't looking? *PLONK* As for the categories, I hadn't paid that much mind yet. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mean Girls worldwide box office citation

Here. RadioKirk talk to me 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Middle name

I know this is a small detail, but should her middle name be in the top of the article or the biography section? I'd suggest putting it in the biography portion, rather than having all information on her birth name scattered throughout the article.--Fallout boy 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed this user to other featured articles in which birth name is listed as it is here. Personally, I don't feel there is a difference whether it's first, middle, last or all of the above that has changed since birth. Of course, that's my opinion... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I have looked through your precedent articles, and I've also left a note on Strickland's talk page about formatting her name as well. --Fallout boy 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply here. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After considerable review of other Wiki articles, I now tend to agree that the birth name should take precedence. However—and, also in keeping with similar articles—since Lindsay is known so widely by her "professional" name, I'm convinced that reference must immediately follow. RadioKirk talk to me 06:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan now a Featured Article!

Thanks to Raul654 for official recognition of this now-Featured Article. This would not have been possible without the original author, AntonioMartin, and months of work and/or vandal-fighting by Everyking, Adam Bishop, TheCustomOfLife, Zen-master, Yamla, Clawson, Tregoweth, Hall Monitor, Extraordinary Machine, Triggy, and dozens of others just too numerous to mention. Thanks also to Fritz Saalfeld, Rossrs, Gflores, Andrew Levine, AndyZ and Yamla for their help in Peer Review, and to Everyking, RyanGerbil10, Gflores, maclean25, Nightstallion, Forever young, Orane, Rossrs, Extraordinary Machine and Buchanan-Hermit for their help and votes in FAC. I will continue my work, meantime, to help keep this article at its best. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Singles chart

Since several editors, myself included, find album information on Lindsay's main page extraneous, it occurs to me that the singles chart is also repetitive so, for the moment, it's gone in favor of a simple listing (I'm still looking for exact release dates for three of them). Feel free to comment. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


She does not deserve to be a featured article.......there are MUCH MORE deserving people..you know, Mandella etc

I don't remember seeing Mr. Mandela in Mean Girls, soo.... Mad Jack 08:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish-Italian

Does anyone know exactly what parts of her ancestry are Irish and which are Italian? Both her surname and her mother's maiden name, "Sullivan", are Irish. One article I saw mentioned an Italian grandmother. Are both of her parents half Irish and half Italian, or is her father Irish and her mother Irish-Italian? JackO'Lantern 01:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thus far I have declined to ask her "people" since, just from the standpoint of my personal opinion, I found the exact answer irrelevant—oh, and also because the response would be "original research" ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't necessarily be original research, but it's not that important. I was just wondering from a personal standpoint and asking if anybody's read it somewhere, it would have no big effect on the article anyway. JackO'Lantern 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Answering only for myself, I've found no reputable source of anything more specific than is listed :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried looking just now and came up with a blank. It seems the original "irish-Italian" comment was made in a Filmbug article around 1998, and she hasn't mentioned her ancestry at all since (it's been copied and pasted from place-to-place since 1998). She does mention an "Italian grandmother" here [3], that's the only other source. JackO'Lantern 04:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I found it in an early Newsday article, but I couldn't find it again while researching the article's references. RadioKirk talk to me 04:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

im guessing but isnt her father italian? if not he sure acts like it.Curefreak

One of Lohan's grandmother's is Italian.[4] I don't even know which grandmother, though. And I don't know if any of her other grandparents were Italian. Would like to find out, though. Mad Jack 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Girls

This supposed project, like The New Girl above, is a very old—and still very false—rumor. Still ain't happening... RadioKirk talk to me 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Punk'd reference

I still hold that the reference is irrelevant. If it was meant to help explain her later appearance on That 70s Show, the paragraph needs to be re-written to connect the two appearances. As it stands now, the reference to Punk'd tells me nothing more than the fact that she sat across from Ashton Kutcher, who she knew earlier. Sitting across from someone is not significant for encyclopedic content, in my book. -- backburner001 20:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, your logic utterly loses me. It happened, it was a television appearance, it got significant contemporaneous press—thus far, you haven't really explained why you deem the reference irrelevant. Edit: Also, I don't follow what you mean by "sat across from"—if memory serves, she was the featured celeb of the three who were Punk'd in that episode. I hope to hear from you soon. RadioKirk talk to me 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the Punk'd reference is irrelevant because I do not consider appearances on such shows to be substantive information about the career of an actor/actress. Mentioning that Lindsay Lohan appeared on a TV show where celebrities have pranks pulled on them tells me nothing about Lohan's career or significance as an actress. It instead functions as nothing more than a subtle advertisement for Punk'd, which I believe is bad for the encyclopedia. It is possible that the Punk'd reference is significant in demonstrating her friendship with Kutcher and her later connection to Valderrama, but the re-write does not explain that in a manner that connects the two appearances. Until this is re-written to make the connection clear (which should make it relevant), I'm removing the reference altogether. -- backburner001 06:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit I'm a bit off-put by your insistence that information that survived the PR and FAC processes is irrelevant—"I do not consider" demonstrates this is your own opinion—and therefore must be removed until it suits you, as opposed to discussing the intended move first. To be honest, it's irrelevant how Lohan and Kutcher met and became friends; since Punk'd only targets celebrities, it only matters that Kutcher had determined Lohan's celebrity sufficient to feature her on the show, which is a relevant career milestone as it says, "Lindsay Lohan is officially a celebrity, according to Punk'd. (I still maintain that both her Punk'd appearance and the later cameo on That 70s Show are relevant for no more significant reason than they happened.) Therefore, I have restored—with another minor rewrite—a paragraph that survived the PR and FAC processes. In the future, may I ask that you please discuss concerns on data before purging it? RadioKirk talk to me 14:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you are off-put by my edits is not my problem. I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline, which grants immunity to articles that have survived the PR and FAC processes. Though these articles might have survived those processes, they still might have the potential for improvement. If I see a problem in an article, regardless of what process it has survived, I will edit it in an attempt to improve it. Furthermore (if I remember correctly from my brief look at the PR and FAC done on this article), the Punk’d reference was only discussed as an example of a broader suggestion – it was never addressed specifically and you made no further comments on it. Correct me on this point, if I missed something.
Yes, this is my opinion. Yes, this reference must be removed until it suits me. My action in this respect is no different from anything you have done throughout this dispute. You think the Punk’d reference is relevant and therefore you will keep adding it because it suits you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. As a result of the nature of this encyclopedia, editors will sometimes disagree on particular edits. Furthermore, if an editor is determined to push his edit forward, the conflict will continue until that editor decides an edit suits him. If you aren’t prepared to deal with this kind of interaction, go start your own version of Wikipedia where you always have the last word. If not, then don’t point fingers at people for doing the very thing that is encouraged here.
I have made attempts at discussing the issues by justifying my edits when they were contested. My edits are no secret as I made it clear on the history page.
I have already expressed that the Punk’d reference is not sufficient because the connection between the show and her later friendships/relationships is not explicit. The mere fact that they happened is not relevant enough to be included because it tells me nothing about her life or her career, aside from the fact that she was on a show that pulls pranks on celebrities. It is my opinion that biographical articles should highlight the important parts of a person’s life – not necessarily every appearance they made, but the ones that were significant to their success and notoriety.
For this reason, I will keep removing this reference until it remains removed or until a connection between Punk’d and Lohan’s later relationships is made explicit.
FYI: The Punk'd reference removal was by me. I was on a different computer and forgot to sign in when making the last edit. -- backburner001 20:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong answer. You have never attempted to discuss this; never once have you said anything such as, "I think this is irrelevant, let's work together to fix it." Instead, you simply remove the data and justify the move after the fact by saying, essentially, "I don't like it. Fix it, or I'll remove it again." This does not constitute a discussion— it is antagonistic, and my reverts are justified as they restore information that was already there prior to your removal. I am restoring the reference and taking this to WP:RFC/ART. RadioKirk talk to me 20:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with having others comment on the issue. But, let's look at the way you wrote the entry on WP:RFC/ART:
Dispute over whether content can remain until it "satifies" the user who keeps removing it. "Discussion" by User:backburner001 essentially consists of "I don't like it. You fix it. If not, I'll keep removing it."
You aren't even posing the dispute nuetrally, as the second guideline on WP:RFC/ART asks users to do. Who's the one truly being antagonistic? -- backburner001 23:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The posting is neutral; "I don't like it. You fix it. If not, I'll keep removing it" paraphrases with an identical meaning your own words, "Yes, this reference must be removed until it suits me." (The meaning is identical because you apparently cannot say, "Let us fix it"—nevertheless, I've since substituted precise quotes.) Even better, let's go straight to your user page, where one of your stated goals is to "[r]emove irrelevant/trivial content." Note that you don't suggest working together with other editors to "improve" content, but that you, alone, intend to remove it, based on your—and only your—criteria therefor. First, I cannot think of a purpose in simply deleting data unless its factuality is under dispute, or it is obviously false, or it clearly has no relevance to the subject (and this case is anything but clear). Should we "improve" data, as you claim? Absolutely. Reject it out of hand? Absolutely not. Second, did you even attempt to learn who the author was? Did you ever post a message on the talk page saying, give or take, "Why is this here? Is it relevant? Can it be removed if it's not?" No, you did not; you took it upon yourself to determine, "this is irrelevant, good-bye," click. Done. This violates the "working together to create an encyclopedia" spirit that is supposed to embody Wikipedia; it is arrogant, egocentric and unproductive. You wonder why I'm off-put? Because "let's fix this together" (seemingly) never even occurred to you. Naturally, I feel my reaction to your actions is perfectly justified—and, I would go so far as to say I've been far more civil than many other editors would have been. RadioKirk talk to me 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The posting is not neutral. You chose the parts of my responses that bolstered your image and slanted the description of the conflict in your favor. My description was neutral. It stated that there is a dispute and the nature of that dispute (whether content is relevant or not). Other Wikipedians who wish to comment on the matter have the intelligence to determine the rest when they read the content of our dispute on the Lohan talk page.
Contrary to the image you are attempting to paint, I have never suggested that we should not work together to improve the article. What you fail to see is that sometimes, removing content is part of that collaboration and improvement. I did my part – I removed content I felt was not significant and I made suggestions for improvement when I was asked for them. If you are interested in working together to fix this problem, do your part and improve the Punk’d reference or give me a legitimate reason for keeping the reference that was in there before. The above statements you made provided no good counter-arguments. Instead of focusing on the discussing the reference I removed, you decided to focus on the fact that the edit occurred and took great offense to it.
What you are asking me for is preferential treatment. In effect, though you probably won’t acknowledge this, you are telling me that I need to ask your permission before changing your work on Wikipedia. I’m not going to ask your permission before editing articles here. You have the ability to look at the history page, examine what edits have been made, ask questions about changes to the people who made them, etc. -- backburner001 04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've tried being nice. What I am demanding is that you abandon the confrontational style of "I'm removing it until I like it and you'll get over it." I will not be bullied. The reference stays. Period. RadioKirk talk to me 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Identify exactly where you found the sentence, "I'm removing it until I like it and you'll get over it." --backburner001 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You are confrontational. Your idea of "working together" is, paraphrased (got it this time?), "I don't like it. I'm deleting it. You fix it." I have laid out the case for the information's inclusion (it happened, it received massive press, it demonstrates Lohan's celebrity status, etc.); your entire case is, paraphrased (I can keep this up...), "I don't care. I say it's irrelevant. Gone." If I worked with someone IRL whose idea of "working together" matched yours, his butt would be fired. You have forced me to respond in kind, so that's what I'm doing. I intend to stop your attempts to vandalize this article by purging it of demonstrably relevant material if it gets us both repeatedly blocked for WP:3RR and/or banned from Wikipedia. "My soul's prepared. How's yours?" RadioKirk talk to me 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting a Wikipedia:truce. As a condition of this truce, I request that you do not edit the description of this dispute on the WP:RFC/ART. In return, I will not make additional edits to the Lindsay Lohan article until we resolve this dispute. Do you accept these conditions, RadioKirk? -- backburner001 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I am, however, placing you on notice: Your professed "I did my part – I removed content ... (you) do your part and improve (it)" style of "working together" is the real-life equivalent of taking a co-worker's report, tossing a random page into the trash, telling them "I did my part, now you do yours and fix it" and then taking credit for "helping" to "improve" it. If you weren't fired, your actions would make you the most despised person in the office; they are antagonistic, confrontational and wrong. This is not about me; it's about equity, and your "work" on Wikipedia as a whole. I intend to keep an eye on your future edits to this and other pages until you've learned what "working together" really means. Yes—it's your turn to satisfy me. RadioKirk talk to me 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Good, then we have a truce.
I came to Wikipedia fully expecting that not only you would scrutinize my edits, but that many others would scrutinize them as well. If you are trying to intimidate or scare me by placing me “on notice,” it won’t work. I’m already on notice, as are you, and as is everyone who edits this encyclopedia. It’s the nature of Wikipedia. Stop dramatizing the situation and stick to the discussion of the content being disputed.
What you call confrontational, I call confident. I am willing to work with people. What I am not willing to do is appease them at every turn by giving them preferential treatment.
Now, I would like to add a condition to this truce. From this point forward, both you and I stop discussing peripheral issues – such as who was wrong, who did this and that, etc. Instead, let’s stick to the dispute – namely whether or not a reference to Punk’d is relevant/significant in this article – and resolve it. Do you agree to this condition? -- backburner001 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If—and only if—you intend to learn from this experience. You continue to proceed from an egocentric platform—your "confidence" has manufactured from whole cloth my "asking ... for pereferential treatment", which does not and never did exist. Simultaneously, my "dramatizing" is no more or less than your own. From here forward, your first step must be in the spirit of mutual cooperation, not your confidence. Do you agree to this condition? RadioKirk talk to me 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The whole reason why I would like to add this condition is because I would like both of us to learn from this experience. I thought this would be apparent by the very nature of the fact that I initiated a truce to begin with.
I am willing to learn from this experience. Are you willing? If you are, will you let issues about our editing styles sit until we resolve this content issue? -- backburner001 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly—and, agreed. RadioKirk talk to me 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. -- backburner001 19:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I will be restoring, with some rewrite, a Punk'd reference that had already been rewritten per peer review and had survived FAC. The reference is valid per my above arguments and is not a case of having "sat across from Ashton Kutcher" as a color commentator would a play-by-play announcer, to conclude the analogy. RadioKirk talk to me 03:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't want to interfere in this, but I'll just say that a Punk'd reference is nothing to get excited about. If it's factually correct and received at least some media coverage, then it should probably be in the article, especially an article this long. JackO'Lantern 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
No interference; that's why it's on WP:RFC/ART. RadioKirk talk to me 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a Punk'd reference on it's own (eg "By the way, Lohan also appeared on Punk'd) would be somewhat irrelevant. Or more correctly, it implies relevance without stating it. This is how it's been presented on some bio pages so it needs to be placed in context that gives it as much encyclopedic relevance as other listed appearances. Incidentally most listed appearances on celeb bios are without context and don't get removed simply because it looks like advertising a particular program, so it does suggest that Punk'd is being targetted here, rightly or wrongly. But let's move on and place this within an acceptable context. I think "Lohan was enough of a household name" is stepping in the right direction, and personally, I think it's acceptable, if a little weak. You could possibly strengthen it if you think about why Lohan was chosen for the season finale. She didn't end up on the show by accident - think about it from a marketing point of view. The producers want maximum viewers, they want a celebrity that they can advertise to attract those viewers and of all the possibilities, they choose Lohan. She obviously fits the bill - she is an established celebrity, she appeals to the same young market that the show targets, she is obviously in their opinion highly marketable. The Ashton Kutcher connection is beside the point and it probably just made it easier to set up the episode, but I'm sure the producers of Punk'd and Saturday Night Live would be thinking $$$$ only. I would try to rewrite the sentence with this kind of focus, but in doing so a reference will be mandatory. Something that references either Lohan's management in accepting the deal, or Punk'd management in choosing Lohan would be great. In the overall scheme of things an appearance in Punk'd is no big deal, but it does demonstrate her achieving a particular level of celebrity. Having said all this, I think the sentence is ok as it is and I don't think it absolutely must be changed, but I also think that any opportunity to improve/strengthen an article should be taken and this is how I would suggest improving it. The whole delete/revert/delete/revert thing is clearly counterproductive. Rossrs 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you really hit the nail with the hammer factory, to borrow a line from another editor: How to state the obvious without denigrating into POV. I'll look into whether it can be done. Thanks for the suggestion. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Rossrs 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think Punk'd is a notable reference simply because the show doesn't have a famed legacy that will be remembered for years to come, and also because it is not popular enough a show to merit a mention in the main article. As I told RadioKirk off-Wiki, Punk'd's appeal is very limited. Inside the US, it might be popular but since Lindsay is now a global star, the scope needs to be widened a bit. Here in Canada, where Punk'd airs and we get MTV and such (which is way more than most other countries like it in the world), the show barely raises an eyebrow. In a nation where pop culture and media is dominated by Americans, this shows that Punk'd isn't really worth mentioning outside the US.
Second point: legacy. Let's compare Lindsay's appearances on Saturday Night Live with the one from Punk'd, since they are both considered TV guest appearances. IMO, the first is worth mentioning and the second is not. Why? Legacy. SNL has had a legacy of Hall of Fame performers and Hall of Fame hosts. Punk'd didn't do much besides mess around with current stars (mostly those who won't even be Hall of Fame status a decade from now) and promote Ashton Kutcher's career. As a show that has lasted for a mere three years (and has yet to draw much attention outside the US, unlike SNL), it doesn't seem to suggest that people will look back years from now and say, "Remember when Lindsay Lohan got really famous after she got punk'd?"
However, as I am not a deletionist, this may merit a mention as a trivia fact. But certainly not part of the main article due to its lack of legacy and the show's lack of prominence outside a rather restricted audience group.
I'm going to exit this discussion now because, as I saw above, this kinda got ugly. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 08:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Note added afterwards: Also, from a perspective outside the US and the reaches of Punk'd, the Punk'd reference looks REALLY out of place and REALLY random. It looks like it just came out of nowhere. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 08:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
While trying to respect the global view, as I told B-H off-Wiki, this is a US teenager and the article does have to be somewhat US-centric (indeed, her films were well received in some countries but likely insignificant in others). Also, any TV show that survives three years is considered successful. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"Success" doesn't always mean noteworthy. I am still not convinced at all that Punk'd is a rite or passage or a mentionable appearance because it is a show that has yet to establish a legacy. If you were to add mentions based on "successful" shows, there'd be tons of other mentions, right? I just don't think Punk'd is a big, popular or legendary enough show to warrant a mention like that. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Granted; a matter of perspective, though. ;) Thanks for the input. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, show me the viewship numbers of Punk'd and the names of celebrities who have appeared on the show, and compare it with a show with a legacy like Saturday Night Live. Then try to tell me I'm wrong. That's the way I see it. Punk'd is barely a speck on the radar. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 07:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand the point you're making, but you sound almost as if you think an appearance has to carry with it the legacy of an SNL. With only the occasional exception, like The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson and The Price Is Right, that simply doesn't happen. For a three-year run (so far), however, any show that can boast internationally known guests such as Jessica Alba, Halle Berry, Lara Flynn Boyle, Neve Campbell (Canadian), Avril Lavigne (Canadian), Mandy Moore, Shaquille O'Neal, Matthew Perry (raised in Canada), Britney Spears, Kanye West and Usher should make something of an impression. Even in the US, for some readers of this article, there could be a lot of "what the hell is that?" reaction; it is, however, the purpose of an encyclopedia article to tell you as much about the person as is relevant to his or her inclusion in the first place. People who don't know what Punk'd is can follow the link and find out, learning along the way that the show often serves as something of a rite of passage (as Rossrs and Extraordinary Machine have echoed) for contemporary celebrities; the sine qua non of my reasoning that the reference—especially with that specification included—is relevant for Lindsay Lohan's article. RadioKirk talk to me 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know. And I believe that to have a mention in the main body like that requires a show with a certain legacy (i.e. something someone will look back at and remember as a turning point in the star's career). But you still haven't answered my main point -- what makes Punk'd different from the other TV guest appearances that makes it worth mentioning? There are other shows that have featured the same calibre of stars in a three-year run that you have mentioned but don't warrant mentions. Why is that? Overall, I am still not even a tiny bit convinced that Punk'd is different from the rest. If you mention the appearance on Punk'd, you might as well mention all of the TV guest appearances, and that can get messy. That's the problem I see, because it is not different from other TV guest appearances. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I'd only be repeating myself so, if you'll pardon the cliché, I guess we'll agree to disagree. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
From the prospect of certain countries, any article bigger than two words about a 19 year teenage girl looks random, too. So.... JackO'Lantern 08:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but that is hardly the majority. I come from several different cultural backgrounds (mostly Chinese, but part Portuguese and raised in North America) and I can tell you from what I have learned from this diversity is that for most countries that allow any sort of freedom in popular culture, that statement is not accurate. There are teen stars in other countries too. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 07:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! As such, a teen star in, say, China, would have listed those appearances that contributed to his/her fame in China, even though people in many (most?) other countries wouldn't have a clue—at least, to begin with. That's why I'm of the opinion that Punk'd, as an ingredient in a body of work, makes its own case for inclusion in this article. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's certainly true, I am aware that Chinese/Portuguese cultures do have their teen stars. I'm just saying, "some" cultures don't. I wasn't making a strong point or anything, just saying that everything looks unusual to someone, not just a Punk'd reference. JackO'Lantern 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rossrs that Punk'd is a "rite-of-passage" of sorts for contemporary celebrities, though I don't really mind either way if it stays or goes. However, please could nobody add a description of the prank that was pulled on Lohan. Right now the sentence concerning her appearance is succinct and does its job without going into unnecessary detail. Extraordinary Machine 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I should admit first that while reviewing this article for FAC I thought this part was pretty weak but I didn't consider it an error or completely inappropraite so I didn't dwell on it (I just didn't care too much) but just moved on. I am glad to see there are editors who are boldly considering and re-considering the content. I agree with Rossrs that this paragraph should be taken in context with the target audience. This can be a good opportunity to provide a little analysis of Lohan's taget audience/fan-base, as well as her show-biz friends/relationships. --maclean25 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. RadioKirk talk to me 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the comments on this page elaborate on many of the same reasons why I decided the reference to Punk’d, as it was written, is irrelevant. I’d like to elaborate further.

Celebrities are not born because of Punk’d. Rather, they are targeted by Punk’d because they are celebrities. Essentially, this means something other than an appearance on Punk’d had to elevate Lohan to celebrity status. It is my opinion that a biographic article, such as this one, should discuss those appearances that elevate and maintain celebrities to their status as famous people. Other minor appearances should be excluded from the article (or should be mentioned in the trivia section). In removing this reference from several other pages, I avoided removing Punk’d references from those pages where it was listed in the trivia section.

If simply appearing on a show is noteworthy enough for mention, then we might as well document every time Lindsay Lohan has appeared on the evening news or made a commercial for a product. The same logic used above by RadioKirk to defend the reference to Punk’d can be applied in defense of referencing news and commercial appearances: “Lindsay Lohan is officially a celebrity, according to [insert news program or company here].” Why don’t we list news and commercial appearances too? I believe it is because these appearances, like the Punk’d appearance, is not what elevated Lohan to her current status. It is her significant career contributions that elevated her to celebrity status. Therefore, the Punk’d reference is irrelevant.

Above, I did mention that there is possible relevance that may exist by discussing the connection between Lohan and her now ex-boyfriend, whom she met in the cameo appearance on That 70s Show. The only way this would be relevant is if Kutcher, who she first met on Punk’d, introduced Lohan to her ex-boyfriend. If this is indeed how they met (I don’t keep track of Lohan’s personal life), then the connection between Lohan’s appearance on Punk’d and her meeting her ex-boyfriend through a cameo appearance with someone else from Punk’d must be made explicit. Otherwise, the appearances remain irrelevant.

I suggest one of the following actions be taken:

  • The reference be edited to set the reference in a context that makes it relevant
  • The reference be removed from the main body of the article and placed in a trivia section
  • The reference be removed altogether

Any thoughts or other suggestions? -- backburner001 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested further up the page editing it to make the context relevant. Can we please not go anywhere near option 2. "Trivia" sections serve only to trivialise articles - they are generally regarded as unencyclopedic and their presence often leads to oppose votes in Wikipedia:Featured article nominations. To start a "trivia" section would fix one problem and create another. Rossrs 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion to make the context relevant. That is precisely why I included that suggestion in my list. I also agree that trivia sections trivialize articles and I was hesitant to add that suggestion, but added it with the idea of compromise in mind. My only concern is to make the reference relevant. -- backburner001 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts: Many of the comments on this page echo my reasons for believing the reference is relevant. You state, "Celebrities are not born because of Punk’d. Rather, they are targeted by Punk’d because they are celebrities. Essentially, this means something other than an appearance on Punk’d had to elevate Lohan to celebrity status." This echoes:
  • "... since Punk'd only targets celebrities, it only matters that Kutcher had determined Lohan's celebrity sufficient to feature her on the show". (RadioKirk)
  • "... Punk'd is no big deal, but it does demonstrate her achieving a particular level of celebrity." (Rossrs)
  • "I agree with Rossrs that Punk'd is a "rite-of-passage" of sorts for contemporary celebrities..." (Extraordinary Machine)
You also state, "It is my opinion that a biographic article, such as this one, should discuss those appearances that elevate and maintain celebrities to their status as famous people." That is precisely the way this article is written; the Lohan-did-that-and-it-was-well-received-so-she-then-did-this style, while not precisely chronological, builds the case for Lohan's inclusion in Wikipedia, never mind what she's done. Punk'd, as an affirmation of preexisting celebrity—even if only among the massive cult following achieved by the show, never mind the fact that the mainstream news media helped secure the inclusion of the term "punk'd" into the national lexicon—is a steppingstone in the whole, and is not included or intended as a stand-alone fact. (This point is huge.)
To continue: "The same logic used above by RadioKirk to defend the reference to Punk’d can be applied in defense of referencing news and commercial appearances: “Lindsay Lohan is officially a celebrity, according to [insert news program or company here].” Why don’t we list news and commercial appearances too?" We do; see footnotes 8, 9, 22, and 29-41.
As for the Lohan-Kutcher connection, I now maintain that this is irrelevant ("to be honest, it's irrelevant how Lohan and Kutcher met and became friends" [RadioKirk]). Yes, I once noted that the Punk'd reference helps "explain her later appearance on That 70s Show" but I retract the statement as inaccurate. I should have noted that the connection only merits their inclusion together, in the same paragraph.
Finally, I strongly agree with Rossrs that there should be no "Trivia" section.
Suggestions:
  1. That the reference is fine as written; or
  2. That it be allowed to stand as weak, but sufficient, as I and/or others research ways to make it better (based on the premise that, like articles or other media, portions of articles also should default to "keep" absent a clear reason or consensus to delete).
Comments welcome. RadioKirk talk to me 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a note. I absolutely agree that under no circumstances should we have a trivia section. I believe any piece of trivia can either A. be inserted into an article or B. if it can't, it probably shouldn't be there in the first place. JackO'Lantern 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for stating the obvious: There are two, and only two, issues in a content dispute: 1) Should the content be in the article; and 2) If not, can we fix it? If the answer to 1) is "Yes", then 2) becomes moot. If the answer to 1) is "No", then 2) becomes the sole issue. If it turns out the answer is "No", I have the same motivation as anyone else here and in all of Wikipedia to change it to a "Yes". RadioKirk talk to me 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I like the 'expansion with context' option. Simply stating that she was on Punk'd is trivial. Bringing in that her presence in the season finale was used to market towards her target audience makes it less trivial as it lets the reader better understand who she is popular with (assuming the reader knows what Punk'd is/was and what its target audience is/was). Making the connection between Kutcher and Lohan's appearance on That 70s Show and her dating Valderrama is, in my opinion, noteworthy as it reveals a little about the inner workings of those kinds of celebrities. So, I am in favor of allowing RadioKirk a couple days or a week to develop her appearance on Punk'd/70s Show into a brilliant piece of analysis. Consider IMDB which has a bunch of news-stories from the WENN about her relationship with Valderrama. --maclean25 04:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
As a journalist, I would beg you to please reconsider anything whatsoever to do with WENN. This "service" picks up mostly unsubstantiated material from other sources; WENN distributes, it does very little (if any) reporting. Meantime, I'm looking for reliable expansion information as I type this. RadioKirk talk to me 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't know. That was my first encounter with that agency and WENN nor the currently red-linked World Entertainment News Network were any help. -maclean25 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
They're one and the same. And, 'salright, I'm still looking... RadioKirk talk to me 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Wups, wrong; that'll teach me to follow a link. WENN in the case of entertainment "news" is the red-linked World Entertainment News Network. RadioKirk talk to me 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: Unless someone else is actually working on this, I've exhausted all but one option: Nielsen Media, from whom I hope to get a response soon. Absent relevant ratings information, the passage will live or die as it stands. RadioKirk talk to me 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Results of discussion (no actual poll was taken)

Tally as of 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC):

  • Keep: 2 (RadioKirk, JackO'Lantern)
  • Keep, but make an effort to improve: 2 (Rossrs, maclean25)
  • Delete if not improved: 2 (backburner001, Buchanan-Hermit)
  • No opinion: 1 (Extraordinary Machine)

No consensus has been reached; however, a majority (57%) could be termed "Keep, though preferably with improvement" (Note: The editor who found relevance in the "rite-of-passage" argument was properly credited with a "No opinion"). All seven editors offered substantive discussion on this item and are given equal (1:1) weight. Substantive discussion began 25 February; seven days have passed. Therefore, the Punk'd reference should remain as written per Wikipedia policy that "no consensus defaults to keep" (see this VfD and dozens more). I will, nevertheless, continue the search for ways to make the reference better, as it is the honorable thing to do. Admins: If you have any input into the impartiality of these results, please feel free to comment. Editors: If you feel the summary of your own input does not reflect your intentions, please comment as well. RadioKirk talk to me 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The results of this "tally" are not legitimate as no actual straw poll was conducted. The above comments are part of a discussion that occured as a result of a request for comment. Also, the characterization of my "vote" was not correct. Crediting me with a "delete" "vote" does not acurately reflect my comments above, which suggested that keeping the reference would be acceptable if improvement were possible. -- backburner001 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Corrected. RadioKirk talk to me 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. -- backburner001 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Truce ended, reference removed

Since RadioKirk has determined that our truce does not exist (see my talk page), I have removed the Punk'd reference again and placed a {{Exclusion-Section}} tag in the disputed section. I believe this is a reasonable compromise, given that the tag identifies that the section is currently being disputed (thereby calling the attention of editors to comment on the issue). I ask that RadioKirk simply allow this to stand as it is until we can further discuss the matter when we are assigned a mediator. -- backburner001 02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "truce" you destroyed extends into an RfM you requested? Have fun now... RadioKirk talk to me 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is the RfM rules does it say that I cannot modify an article? My understanding is that I could not modify the request itself made on the RfM page. Am I incorrect here? -- backburner001 05:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The instant data is the subject of the RfM and may not be altered during the process. RadioKirk talk to me 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, where does it say this? I have not been able to find this on the RfM page. I may be missing it, which is why I am requesting that you direct me to it in case I did. -- backburner001 05:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The instant data is the subject of the RfM and may not be altered during the process. RadioKirk talk to me 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. -- backburner001 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Nor will I. You are to direct your query to its proper recipient. RadioKirk talk to me 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Intent to close dated process

There has been no discussion on this subject since 28 February 2006 (three weeks). A "disputed" tag was added on 7 March 2006 (two weeks ago); the only discussion to result therefrom was limited to the inclusion/deletion of the data during the dispute. Per Wikipedia deletion process—believed by this editor to apply to portions of Wikidata as well as Wikidata in its entirety—if there is no clear consensus to delete the disputed data, "(including any variant such as REDIRECT or MERGE)," then "the decision is KEEP". (This editor believes the preceding applies to informal discussion as well as a formal tally.) Further, a request for mediation was closed by Essjay on 8 March 2006 "for failure of the parties to show good faith effort at mediation"; also per Essjay, the dispute is to be "referred to arbitration to consider the matters of harassment, edit warring, and vandalism." Therefore, the instant process is dated and will be closed, and the "disputed" tag removed, within 48 hours. Signed, RadioKirk talk to me 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a similar Wikipedia policy or guideline in reference to disputed sections of an article? The Wikipedia deletion process page refers to the deletion of entire articles, not sections of articles (or even parts of sections, which is what this dispute involves). Since this matter is going to be referred to arbitration, I will not object to "closing" the discussion on this page (although this essentially means nothing since the matter will be referred to arbitration anyway). -- backburner001 21:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
None I can find; it's my assertion based on that which does exist. RadioKirk talk to me 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize -- I missed the part of your above comment where you clarified this by stating that it is believed by you "to apply to portions of Wikidata as well as Wikidata in its entirety." I'll read more carefully in the future. -- backburner001 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. RadioKirk talk to me 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Remixes

I took the liberty of deleting this section of the article, since it only links to a deleted article and leaving it around may tempt someone to recreate something that's already been through VfD once. The information it gave was sparse when it was part of the main LL article anyway. However, a proper list of remixes would be a valuable addition to the listed discography. In my opinion, though, it would only be relevant if it included names of the remix artists and perhaps dates of release (in order to give the reader a sense of whether or not her songs enjoyed sustained popularity, etc.). Unfortunately, I have no idea where this information could be sourced from. Anybody have any leads? Istewart 10:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy?

I was just looking over this page after I looked over the Lindsay Lohan page and it seems there is a discrepancy in how well the movie did at the boxoffice. This page says:

The movie did poorly, sliding down the box office charts nearly every week since entering on number 2 on 31 July 1998. It made a modest U.S. gross of just over $66 million. [5]

The Lohan page says:

The Parent Trap did well at the box office, bringing in US$92 million worldwide.[1]

They are totally different, both in number and in attitude. I hope that someone with legitamate sources can fix this before someone else sees it, as who knows how long this has been here! --Jared [T]/[+] 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The figure and source in the Lindsay Lohan article are correct, as is your source—sort of. The Parent Trap did US$66M domestically and US$92M worldwide (as the article states). Your source, however, asserts that the film did "poorly", which seems to reflect the POV of the writer. This little family comedy did fairly well against its competition, and a US$66M domestic gross in 1998 would be considered a moderate success. RadioKirk talk to me 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I've rephrased the passage; it should now be more accurate. RadioKirk talk to me 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
If you go here you can see all the exact statistics for the movie. Stephe1987 00:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Smoking hypocrisy

Given that it's good wikiquette to propose adding major changes to the article, I wanted to suggest adding this:

In July 2005 she participated in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a campaign to prevent teenagers from smoking cigarettes and to help current smokers quit[2] (although Lohan herself is a smoker[3]).
  1. ^ boxofficemojo.com. Box Office Mojo: The Parent Trap. Retrieved on 29 January 2006.
  2. ^ The Clarion-Ledger. Celebs Help Nix Nicotine with Signatures.. Retrieved on 11 March 2006.
  3. ^ WENN. Smoky Lohan Drives Mom to Tears. Retrieved on 11 March 2006.

--Fallout boy 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? According to published stories, she's trying to quit, so even intimating hypocrisy pushes a POV. (Consider: why can't a person who's trying to quit help others even if that person has yet to succeed? For that matter, why can't a person who's hooked and may not even want to quit help keep others from starting?) Also, I have noted before that, as a journalist, I do not trust anything that comes from the World Entertainment News Network, which basically disseminates every rumor it can find.

Anyway, if deemed relevant (it's close...), I would write the following:

  • In July 2005, Lohan participated in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an effort to help prevent teenagers from smoking cigarettes and to help current smokers quit.[1]

RadioKirk talk to me 00:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems a little POV to not even mention that she herself has been a known smoker continuously since at least July 2004. As for WENN, even if you don't trust them, they have a direct quote from Lindsay's mother. I also found a huge depository of links here.--Fallout boy 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's just say I have a very strong reason to believe that WENN's "quotes" are suspect, and we'll leave it at that (I have a better link anyway, if you'll allow me). As for the fact that Lindsay is a smoker, yes, of course she is (unless she's succeeded in quitting and it's just not a known fact yet). Millions of people smoke; the only way I would consider it encyclopedic for Lindsay (and, remember, this is my opinion, others may disagree) would be a carefully worded addendum to the paragraph you're proposing. The way you wrote it "(although Lohan herself is a smoker)" came across to me as if it's pointing out a hypocrisy (and your header didn't help, either), which we can't even begin to back up (as I note above, there are several possible motivations). How about this (and, once again, this is close to the edge of relevance):
  • In July 2005, Lohan participated in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an effort to help prevent teenagers from smoking cigarettes and to help current smokers quit.[2] By early 2006, Lohan also was trying to break the habit.[3]
RadioKirk talk to me 01:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My final version would be this:

In July 2005, Lohan participated in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an effort to help prevent teenagers from smoking cigarettes and to help current smokers quit. Lohan, a known smoker since 2004, was also trying to break the habit as of early 2006.

And if you don't mind me asking, what is your reason for not trusting WENN? (just out of curiosity).--Fallout boy 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree if "a known smoker since 2004" is dropped. The sentence, "Lohan also was trying to break the habit as of early 2006" tells the tale—"a known smoker" is redundant (if she's trying to break the habit then, yes, she's a smoker) and pushes the point unnecessarily hard (if I saw that in someone's—anyone's—article, I'd wonder, "Why is this here? What point is the editor trying to make?").
As for WENN, two things: it redisseminates rumors with no effort at confirmation, and I know people who say they have been misquoted (I'm not in a position to elaborate, sorry). Edit: Okay, after checking further, the misquotes all originated at PageSix and were then disseminated by WENN. Still, I have never seen WENN do any of its own reporting (or, certainly, any verification) and, as a result, anything I see from WENN I research until I find a reliable source. If there isn't one, the data is not included (Edit: more accurately, I won't include it, I can't speak for others).
RadioKirk talk to me 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Making it clear that Lohan is also a smoker does not appear to be POV-pushing. I don't see any harm in making explicit the knowledge that Lohan is a smoker or that she is trying to quit. My only other suggestion would be to find sources that quote what Lohan has said about the issue of her smoking (if such sources exist) or sources that explain other people's criticism of Lohan's smoking habit (if those exist). Those would help add substantial information about the issue that would give it increased encyclopedic context. -- backburner001 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And, "Lohan also was trying to break the habit as of early 2006" does that with precision and without unnecessary force (again, that's one person's opinion, but it's a strong one). Edit: On the other hand, if there's a reliable source for when she began smoking, I would not object to "Lohan, who started (emphasis mine, not for the article) smoking in (year), was trying to break the habit as of early 2006." (Mainly, my problem with "a known smoker" is, it sounds criminal—as in, "a known gang member" or "a known sex offender"—and intimates the unsubstantiated "hypocrisy" noted in the header above. The "who started smoking in..." passage works because it says, while she started there, she's trying to finish here. That's factual without invoking a sense of, "what is the editor trying to say with this?") As for quotes from her, all I've found to date are comments by her mother; I'm still looking, and if anyone is aware of a source, please feel free to pass it on. RadioKirk talk to me 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on the "known smoker" description. I would consider making Lohan's personal smoking use explicit, but avoid using language that makes the act sound criminal or even hypocritical. However, if it is the hypocrisy that Fallout boy would like to highlight, I do not think it would be POV-pushing to cite references to criticisms of Lohan's recent efforts with the campaign to stop smoking (if such can be found anywhere). If such references cannot be found, I would write the sentence like this:
In July 2005, Lohan participated in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an effort to help prevent teenagers from smoking cigarettes and to help current smokers quit. Lohan, who began smoking in 2004, was also trying to break the habit as of early 2006.
I'd also like to mention that I don't think it would've been bad Wikiquette to add the first sentence without introducing it on the talk page. I wouldn't classify this as a major change, but rather a minor one instead. Issues about potential POV-pushing could have still been addressed here on this talk page after the smoking issue was added to the article. -- backburner001 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed—since I probably would have edited the passage and explained why here, prompting likely the identical conversation. In fact, since she first was photographed with a cigarette in January or February 2004 (that search was a pain...), I think the sentence passes muster now, so I'll add it (if you don't while I'm typing this).
Meantime, you neglected to sign your comment, so I added {{unsigned}}; if you decide to fix that, you may remove this paragraph with my blessing.
RadioKirk talk to me 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for leaving my last comment unsigned. I fixed it.
Is there a reason why the second sentence is enclosed in a set of parentheses? Other than that minor question (which is more of a stylistic pet peeve, if anything), I'm satisfied with the reference. -- backburner001 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes: although the "Media spotlight" section is not precisely chronological, the reference seemed out of place—and, sufficiently jarringly—once included as part of a narrative. Parentheses gave it the "okay, this is vital, but a slight digression" feel that fit. RadioKirk talk to me 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Quotes?

Is it just me or does this article have way too many quotes? I mean, does it really matter what each and every critic said about her movies? Or what Lindsay told her friends about what she was doing while filming The Parent Trap? It's a cute quote, but it's not really encyclopedic. This is supposed to be a biography on Lindsay's life, not a quote book or about what people think of Lindsay! I could be wrong about this, but please let me know what you think. I have finals this week, but I am done on Wednesday and have a week off, so I am planning on doing some clean-up on Thursday because this article needs some help—and I am not just talking about the quotes/references. In my opinion there are way too many, but we can keep those if people really want them. In other categories, the wording on some sentences is off and there are a lot of repeats of information that should be stated only once. Stephe1987 23:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephe1987, the quotes are not only relevant to the she-was-good-in-this-project-so-she-then-did-this-project narrative, but they were required for a Featured article. I understand and appreciate that you want to improve this article, as do all of us working on it, but any change that is counterproductive could adversely affect FA status. Please be bold in your edits but, at the same time, please take care to follow the guidelines of what is a Featured article and, for an insight into how this specific article succeeded, read this. RadioKirk talk to me 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say to get rid of all of them, I just said that there are too many. The ways she got her roles is important, but we really don't need to hear about five different peoples' opinions on a particular movie. One or two is just fine. But if you want them there that's fine. That's what I wanted to know anyway. I think that part of the problem with the quotes is that the incorporation into the article is not very smooth—they need to be better written. The people who requested an article cleanup were right: the content is good but the layout quality is poor. I think that the previous version got FA status because it was very informative, not because it was the best it could be, and an improvement is greatly needed to get this article back to the FA status where it should be. I think that keeping all those quotes and other random info in there could be good—if the article was better-organized and the overall flow was better. As is now, this article looks like a group of people came in and found all the quotes they could, and then carelessly entered them into the article! Also what do you think about the quote about what Lindsay told her friends during The Parent Trap? To me, that sounds more like something they'd put on E! True Hollywood story, not an encyclopedia entry. I mean, it's cute, but not particularly important. Stephe1987 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The current version, with a few small additions and minor changes, won FA status—the cleanup request was made several months prior. Each movie has one or two quotes (none has more) to demonstrate a critical consensus as required by admins and editors during the FA process. Her quotes also were required during the same process to make her human. Sorry to persist but, if you haven't read the links I left above, please do. RadioKirk talk to me 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Okay, I reread the article, and found a few quotes a little clunky—and, bear in mind, I wrote most of them in—and I've just smoothed them out a little. The TPT quote is a vital insight into the show-biz savvy of a then-11-year-old girl and was specifically recommended during WP:FA; the few other Lohan quotes were similarly added. RadioKirk talk to me 19:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool! The article seems better now. I understand why the quotes were in there. Thanks! Stephe1987 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Section restored: Stephe1987, I know you like to remove comments from your user talk page when a discussion is done, and that's great! On article pages, though, they should remain as relevant to the article's history. Thanks again for helping smooth a few things out! RadioKirk talk to me 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it's important to keep in sections like this when changes are actually made to the article, but no changes were made here. I simply asked about why there were so many quotes, and you answered my questions with information about FA's, etc. Is it necessary to keep in a section like this when it was a simple question and no changes were actually made? Or do the Wikipedia people like to have every single comment ever made on record? It seems like this, when nothing was actually done, is irrelevant and just a waste of space when people are coming here to look at changes that were actually made and discuss things. It's just one more thing to scroll down past on an already-busy page, full of comments about changes to the article. Or maybe they want to keep it in case people have the same questions that I had? Stephe1987 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(Reduce indent) That's the main reason, for people in the future with similar questions. At the same time, though, something was done as a result: the quotes were smoothed out. This documents the process. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true. The quotes were smoothed out, even if it was only a minor edit. Someone else recently told me that Wikipedia wants to keep discussions posted on article talk pages for a certain number of months before they get rid of them. This makes sense to me because people can see the most recent changes/discussions, but old stuff really should be gotten rid of— especially discussion about rumors regarding personal lives of celebrities that would never be put in the encyclopedia anyway, even if they were facts. Or even rumors that people on here started! :) Stephe1987 08:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I'd say the rumors in particular should stay here. If you'll look at The New Girl above, for example, you'll notice that some things are dusted off and/or rewritten and regurgigated—sometimes years later. When an editor removes such an addition, it helps to be able to say something like "I'm reverting this, read the discussion." Longer (and older) discussions should be archived (and I may just do that), but removing them altogether is rare. Hope this helps. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Filmography wrong way round

the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have sworn that newest-to-oldest was the norm when I put this together... but, it's now fixed. Do you have a specific link I can follow to see the guide for future reference? RadioKirk talk to me 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Filmographies and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). i fixed the discography bit of this article myself, so its ok for renomination now. Zzzzz 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, but here's where it confused me: while it specifically states under Other Notes that "new entries will be added at the bottom", if you scroll back up to the example tables under The end (which the reader will see first), you'll notice they're arranged newest first.
yep, confusing for sure. so i was bold and rearranged it on that page.
Meantime, "renomination"? It was never removed from FA status; that's not necessary, is it? RadioKirk talk to me 14:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
oops getting confused between FA and GA. ;-) Zzzzz 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Kewl thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourth page I've found. Talk:Julia Stiles, Talk:Uma Thurman, Talk:Katie Holmes. I defer to my comment on the Julia Stiles talk page except to point out that both articles zzzzz links are inactive and he just changed the order shown to suit his needs. Why should I believe you carry this discussion in good faith when you're changing "policy" to fit your argument? Sad. Cburnett 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A further note. Zzzzz changed the Wikipedia:Filmographies to fit his argument so he could use it as an authoritative source (despite it being inactive). I've started discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies#Chronological ordering to address this since Zzzzz is scattering discussion on many articles' talk page. Please continue this discussion there. Cburnett 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone cares what I think - I think the filmographies should be 1. newer film first and 2. in the new format that was reverted to by the person who is not RadioKirk (Cburnett?) JackO'Lantern 05:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be me. Please chime in on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies#Chronological ordering with what you think (not because it happends to be on "my side" but I want input in the discussion). Cburnett 05:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted someone else's change (and they presumed vandalism, tsk) back to your last version. I reverted all the way back to 47000927 because the singles and albums also had been reversed; I had forgotten that someone changed the table to something they liked (I'd left it alone because the diff was mostly insignificant). RadioKirk talk to me 12:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit: That "someone else" would be User:Niz who, despite the apparent creation of a revert war, is calling the reversion to the appearance prior to the demand by User:Zzzzz "childishness". This user also has told Cburnett, "I am trying to apply consistency across all featured articles, dont revert again." How is this applicable when the referenced guideline is antiquated and there is an in-progress discussion about current guidelines? Reverting an article to its appearance prior to a discussion is hardly unusual in my experience, and Niz's repeated assertion that this activity is "childish" is, frankly, disconcerting... RadioKirk talk to me 13:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me by another user that every other Featured Article lists films and such in descending chrono—of course, this note came after this user changed Keira Knightley, Uma Thurman, KaDee Strickland and Katie Holmes to thus conform, referencing the nonexistent style guide. If someone wants to change it back, I won't revert it; I have an encyclopedia to help write... RadioKirk talk to me 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pantyless apperance on Nickelodeon?

Dunno if anyone else heard about the latest Lohan controversy, apparently she appeared on the Nick Kids Choice Awards sans underwear[6], and was captured [7]. This has been mentioned on VH1 Best Week Ever, and several other media outlets and has fansites somewhat outraged. Dunno if this is worth mentioning ... but I felt the need to comment.  ALKIVAR™ 05:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say include it. Everyking 05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Disagree as irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Its mention has been limited to little more than the most salacious of sources and, as near as I can tell, completely avoided by the mainstream media. (Some fan alongside the runway takes advantage of a skirt and it's encyclopedic?) Meantime, given an apparent preference by Ms. Lohan for thongs as recorded in the recent past by paparazzi, the cap does not convince me that there isn't one. RadioKirk talk to me 05:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm stunned! Stunned, I tell you...

So, first the tabloids report that Lohan's the new Chanel model (replacing Kate Moss), then the tabs say Chanel is blasting Lohan for suggesting it, then the tabs say she's the new face of Louis Vuitton, then the tabs report that she's too "American" for their "global image" so she's been dropped. Edit 01:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC): Now it's Versace (any bets how this will end?). Is it just me, or does anyone else smell a we've-made-up-every-word-of-this-from-the-get-go tab rat? RadioKirk talk to me 04:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Article

Anybody think this article deserves to be made in spoken format? Alex43223 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention it; as a broadcaster, I was just thinking about doing that :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to, go for it. Alex43223 04:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Rumors" video: "sexually suggestive"?

I've seen that video and I don't know what the heck people are talking about. It's not just the article; just about everyone I know says that they saw that video and that she dressed and danced like a whore, etc. WTF? The worst thing I saw in that video was Lohan making out with another guy. Almost every other pop video I've seen is more suggestive, and yet people don't complain. Are there two different versions of the "Rumors" video circulating around the Internet or something?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Spartan 234 (talk • contribs)
Perhaps it's merely the definition of the term varying among viewers; however, if professional reviewers call it "sexually suggestive" (and they did), that's your litmus test. RadioKirk talk to me 03:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Public domain image?

I was glancing through the file infos when I saw some mention of a public domain image of Lindsay, which is not in use because it is not recent enough. If there is a PD image, and its PD status can be verified it should be uploaded to the commons, so at least the foreign wikis that do not believe in fair use have access to it. If it is older it could be used in the early life subsection of the "Biography and career" section.--Fallout boy 21:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Several months ago, I found one of Lindsay at about age 10 that I thought might be PD, but someone later questioned whether it was actually released by the family. What I should do is go change the wording in the files' info. Thanks for the reminder. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)