Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

LP

Why isn't Labor Pains added in the filmography section, filming already started on June 9, 2008......so, i guess it should be added........TBDT (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs a source. Ward3001 (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

here is the source:[1] [2]

TBDT (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Both sources say "has set a June 9 production start". It doesn't say production started. Given Lohan's history of unreliability, the two are not the same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to report the news before it happens. Ward3001 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

also Labor pains started filming on june 9th and its been filming that whole week. go to linds-lo.com and it shows her on set for the past 5 days.it should be added in the filmography. MLP1993(````) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLP1993 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUTB HER CONTRIBUTIONS ON IMBDPRO.COM? THAT IS IMPORTENT INFO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLP1993 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither fansites nor IMDb are acceptable sources for this information. And Brexx, stop showing up with a new username every few days trying to bulldoze your unacceptable edits on to Wikipedia. And if you deny you're Brexx, that's just asking me to do a checkuser to confirm sockpuppetry. Ward3001 (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ummm well i am not brexx my name is mark and i live in MA.u cleary dont know wat your talking about shes been on set for two weeks now and check all ur info about me too. who decided to make u in charge of this. p.s i just made an account so i really dont no how this website works so y dont u give me some info on it.thank you.MLP1993(MLP1993 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Here u go, i think this is an acceptable and a reliable source....now please just add it....[3]

Gifttooffer (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, the source says nothing about filming having started. Go aways Brexx, and please don't come back. Ward3001 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

here is another one.....[4]

and yes it does say it started.... its says : "Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are still hanging out. Lohan's deejay pal paid her a visit on the Los Angeles set of her new movie, Labor Pains, on Monday."

Gifttooffer (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen carefully; I'll try to explain this as simply as I can. "On the set" does not mean "filming". I've been on the set of movies that were not filming. Brexx, you're very annoying. Please go away. You can leave messages here from now until doomsday; I'm no longer responding to you. You're a sockpuppet and a vandal. Ward3001 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

i think this link says it all:[5]

Lohan, showed up for work June 9 on the L.A. location and has consistently been early and well-prepared for the grueling 12-hour shooting days

Eventhedesk (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

why didnt anybody add it to the filmography section yet.....Eventhedesk (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced in "The Best Time of Our Lives"

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

Lohan walks away from Manson Girls

Can someone remove the manson girls info from the "return to acting" section.....cause Lohan will not be in it anymore..[6]

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

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

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

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

third album release date

and on the "untitled third album" section.....instead of "it will be released mid or end of 2008.......put it will be released early Fall...[7]

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

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

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

Small Changes

In the infobox, it says Casablanca (2005 - 2007) that should be changes to Casablanca (2004 - 2007) cause lohan signed with Casablanca in 2004...[8] ................

In the Acting Career , there is

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

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

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

cause now Lohan is the new face for Visa Swap [9]

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

Labor pains should be added in the Filmography section, cause it already started filming.....[10]

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

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

"Products and endorsements": Disagree. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. There is a "Business" section, and that's enough. Celebrities have thousands of "products and endorsements", most of which are not notable and would unnecessarily add lengthy fluff to articles. Ward3001 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to involved editors:

FSFS (talk · contribs) is more than likely a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs) who has a history of inserting this sort of information into articles about celebrities and becoming very confrontational with other editors who disagree with him. Brexx's last confirmed sockpuppet OOC OCD (talk · contribs) was a prime example of this type of behaviour as can be evidenced by his contributions. There is an RFCU case in place here that will confirm or deny that FSFS is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user and, therefore, they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin Farrell

Lindsay and Colin dated briefly in the beginning of 2004, but broke it off due to hectic work schedules. They got back together in late 20004 after lohan dumped Wilmer Valderalma. They were together until late 2005 when Colin's drug problem was at it's worst(Lindsay had already been to rehab during that same year which a friend of hers said explained the weight gain, as cocaine makes you lose weight). They briefly got back together in the beginning of 2006 and there are rumors that Lindsay's rehabs after this point were a diversion (her supposed cocaine addiction treatments were criticized due to her stable weight and the other existing rumors)as several sources state tat Lohan gave birth to the couple's first child, a daughter named Amelia Marie Farrell in October, after only 6 months of pregnancy (which explains why the rumors were never substantiated with baby bump photos because at only 6 months she did not necessarily have to be showing). Colin has been in the picture, but only as baby daddy, not boyfriend as rumors suggest. Lindsay's continued partying was apparently a diversion as she did not want her daughter to be followed by reporters and harassed by schoolmates as her younger siblings were.

http://www.lindsaylohan.name/2004/12/19/lindsay-lohan-dating-colin-farrell/

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2007/04/12/lindsay-lohan-colin-farrell-borgia/

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/04/04gupdate.phtml

http://popdirt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=35210

http://www.hollywoodbackwash.com/colin-farrell-sexy-in-gq-magazine/

http://www.laineygossip.com/Lindsay_Lohan_Hugh_Grant_Colin_Farrell_Lindsay_Lohan_fellating_on_film.aspx

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?sid=57962

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061277,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.139.197 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That is some very creative original research. I suggest you ask her publicist for confirmation....--Agnaramasi (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lindsay Lohan

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

If you can provide me with some solid examples from the article then I will consider creating the review page on your behalf. The page has been created by User:Yamla. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I would advise that an anonymous user create an account if they wish to create a new article or place an article such as this up for review. In this case, though, I think the anonymous user raises some good points that deserve discussion. Additionally, I see no history of vandalism or WP:POINT violations from this particular address. All regular contributors (or vandalism reverters) to this article are encouraged to leave comments. The top of this page has more instructions. --Yamla 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. How about the repeated addition of anything resembling the drunken "firecrotch" spew? Step for Cep again? Stuart for Mitchell again? (Both cited, once...) How can Lohan and Duff have "reconciled" when both claimed there was no feud to begin with (source fails WP:RS anyway)? "Lindsay" for "Lohan" (we're on a first-name basis now?)? Dating a female DJ (WP:RS)? Film listings with no sources? A MySpace fan page? Crap like this gets in over and over and over and over again, so Wikipedia:Why stable versions goes out the window. Not an FA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.226.172 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I have posted a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get wider input as to how we have to treat the sources here.
Kww (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great initiative, thank you. Siawase (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A good idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Update from noticeboard. "As long as we adequately identify our sources, and the fact it is merely opinion, there is no reason to exclude information; even opinion."

I essentially agree with this and personally prefer to update with more firm statements as soon as we have them. Banjeboi 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New movie and Leggings line

Can someone please add the following to the article

New movie titled "Labor Pains" [11]

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

New Leggings line [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.71 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Mink coat case

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

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

Lesbianism/Samantha Ronson

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

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

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

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

ward3001, Who the heck do you think you are? "OK, now the discussion can stay." Get a life.--65.1.111.240 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must state that I agree with the thoughts to add this information to this article as it currently is, whether we have "more concrete evidence" or not. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that rumors coming from very valid sources should not be added to Wikipedia articles. This information is coming from very valid sources. The Tom Cruise article tackles gay rumors about him, coming from valid sources, and his being gay is a lot less likely being true than Lohan being in a lesbian relationship with Ronson, where there are even pictures of her acting more than "like friends" with Ronson...depending on your definition of what women who are friends do. I am a little (just a little, considering that I know how Wikipedia can be) surprised that this information is not in this article. I mean, what harm are we causing by relaying information that most people already know about and are already talking about -- that these are just rumors, rumors where Lohan gushes about her romance with Ronson, rumors that happen to be coming from very valid sources?

If I were editing this article, I would have already added this information to it. And if it were reverted, I would have just gotten a fresh set of eyes and opinions from editors unrelated to editing this article about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding it as long as it is cited with a very reliable source ("very" because the issue is breeding ground for overblown rumors) and not the tabloid-ish sources that have been used so far; and if it is done fairly without exaggeration and in proportion to the likelihood that the rumor is true (i.e., about one sentence). So far everyone who has added it has made comments about Lohan and Ronson as a "couple", or their "affair", or their discussion of "marriage", or other such rubbish from tabloid trash. If someone without an agenda to make Lohan look worse or better than she actually is and who values fact over sensationalism wants to add it, give it a try. But if the usual junk that has been added up to this point is placed in the article I will immediately remove it. And I don't say that out of my respect for Lohan, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or outlet for the rumor mill. Ward3001 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely understand your points. Very reasonable, as well as very valid. I may try to add it in a less sensationalized way some time from now if no one else does. If you do not like the way I add it, you could copyedit it instead of reverting it. But if you flat-out revert it, I would be more than willing to work out revisions here on the talk page with you on how to add it. For now, however, I have other matters to attend to. Thanks for your honest and fair response. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you have a problem with using any of the sources listed in this section? Some of these sources are what I was referring to as "very valid", no matter whether or not they are delivered in a tabloid-ish way. And I could surely relay this information to where it is not overblown sensationalism. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer something along the lines of the New York Times or The Washington Post, although I can't argue on the basis of Wikipedia policy that another reliable source is not acceptable. Here's the problem with the article from The Boston Herald: There's almost no substance, and there is the phrase "there are reports ..." with no source for the reports. That's tabloid trash. The Times of India is even worse: "has reportedly told ...", "according to British tabloids ...". The one element that might have a bit of truth (the quote from Lohan's father) was later essentially refuted by her father as misinterpreted and taken out of context. There are two reasons good information can't be found in better sources: There is very little information; about the only thing we have is that they kissed; lots of women, famous women, have kissed with only a momentary blip in news coverage. And the mainstream media isn't interested in the tabloid junk. Ward3001 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I get what you mean. And I have a feel about how you want this information presented. If I cannot find different reliable sources than the ones in this section, I can still present this information in a decent way. It will most definitely point out things such as Lohan's father stating that his words were misinterpreted and taken out of context. For the most part, the way I present it will be balanaced. If not balanced, it will lean more towards the end of indicating to readers that not too much trust should go into Lohan actually being in a lesbian relationship with Ronson. I'm not sure when I'll add this information, but, yeah, I have a grasp on what you are aiming for in its presentation. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that she has confirmed it in an interview with MTV, it is disrespectful to not acknowledge her relationship with Samantha Ronson. Clearly, it's important enough for her to discuss publicly, and to supress this information diminishes the importance of Ms. Ronson in her life. http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/07072008/428572/lindsay_lohan_admits_lesbian_love

It is not disrespectful to wait and see if it is covered in the mainstream media. One more time for everyone who has not been paying attention: Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it certainly isn't a tabloid. We can wait for solid sources. By the way, I find more than a little suspicious that the article mentions "MTV gossip", that the quote attributed to Lohan does not name Ronson specifically, and that the only quote to mention Ronson was from "a pal" quoted in the tabloid the Daily Mirror. If any of this rumor-filled speculation has a shred of truth, it will be all over the mainstream media very quickly. And so far, I haven't seen anything. Ward3001 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed with a realible source: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23986368-7484,00.html, anyone wants to add it in? --Johndoe789 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. All that source does is to repeat the tabloid gossip from the Daily Mirror. "Recent reports claim ..." and "A source said ..." adds nothing verifiable. Folks, let's use a little common sense. If this tabloid trash happens to turn out to be true, it will show up as confirmed in the New York Times or the Washington Post. One more time: Wikipedia is an encylclopedia, not a newspaper. We can wait for the mainstream sources. Ward3001 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jodie Foster article cites the daily mail, daily telegraph, aol, oneindia(?) and even afterellen(!) on very similar subject matter, but the Lohan article is held to a higher standard? Siawase (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an imperfect work in progress. Finding flaws in one article does not justify keeping those flaws in a different article. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ward3001 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but this article is using these same kinds of sources for the personal life section. The NY Times is used exactly once as a source here, and that is on a movie. The washington post is not used at all (and really, what would you expect them to say on the topic of lindsay's relationships?) Anyway, see below for a more constructive suggestion.Siawase (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001, I find your insistence on "mainstream sources" to be overly militant, and smacks of a need to have everything vetted by the corporate media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Militant? I think you don't know the meaning of the word. It's not MY insistence. It is Wikipedia policy. Read WP:BLP. Again, read WP:BLP, and please don't make accusations about me before reading it in its entirety. And one more time: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Ward3001 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream?! You've GOT to let this go. Surely AP is 'mainstream' enough for you?!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377905,00.html

A simple Googling would have given you an AP article about this. Surely you're not that thick? Then again, your profile reeks of you being a total wacko nutjob. 69.182.30.130 (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil if you wish to be taken seriously on Wikipedia. As for your source, the fifth word in the article is "rumored." Plus, per WP:BLP, the article cannot readily be trusted as reliable as it uses weasel phrases to make its assertion (i.e., "a source told the Daily Mirror"). Please, as Ward3001 already recommended, read WP:BLP; it is a very important policy. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a something on Lindsay's friendship with Samantha instead? This is widely publicized enough that I think some mention of Samantha should be included here, per WP:UNDUE. Just a short sentence sourced from people magazine and some other of the more reliable sources of the same kind already used in this article. Siawase (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

At one point I believe there was a statement that used a word similar to friendship. And if it is done reasonably and in proportion to reality, I don't have a problem with it. What has happened though is that editors who zealously wish to fan the rumor flames and ignore WP:BLP and WP:V incessantly begin to add statements about Lohan and Ronson as a "couple", or their "affair", or their discussion of "marriage", or other tabloid trash. If Ronson is mentioned among other "friends" and it's left at that, it will stay. But the rumor-mongers can't leave it at that. Ward3001 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think wikipedia has a general policy of excluding info because it might attract rumor-mongers, though I can certainly see why it'd be a concern here. But I'm not sure either what exactly to include or where. I guess I'll look at the history and souces and think it over.Siawase (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it can be mentioned a lesbian relationship is suspected. Eleanor Roosevelt is now presumed to have been bisexual though only two biographers claim to have "proof" of this. Even with a whole book of letter published, only a handful {if that} can be interpreted as lesbian. Yet and still, there is a whole paragraph dedicated to speculation on Mrs. Roosevelt's sexual orientation. 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.38.135 (talk)

Wikipedia policy with regards to living people is much stricter than when it comes to historical figures, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Also, the entire relationship section of this article was deleted recently, and no one seems particularly interested in seeing it restored, so. Siawase (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This story from the BBC uses the word "girlfriend". If the BBC are confident this is not libellous, shouldn't that be good enough for WP? --78.148.91.110 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of the RfC below, in which consensus was reached about how this issue should be presented in the article. To change it, there must be a change in consensus. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)