Talk:Lindsay Lohan

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).

llrocks.com vs. lindsaylohanmusic.com

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

The registration for llrocks.com is

c/o Dinah Lohan PMB 179

223 Wall Street

Huntington, New York 11743-2060

United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)

Domain Name: LLROCKS.COM

Created on: 08-Apr-98

Expires on: 07-Apr-10

Last Updated on: 01-Apr-08

Administrative Contact:

Sullivan, Donald dsullivan@zoeo.com

PLI Software

5848 RIDGE RD

CLEVELAND, Ohio 44129-3166

United States

xxx-xxx-xxxx Fax -- xxx-xxx-xxxx

Technical Contact:

Sullivan, Donald dsullivan@zoeo.com

PLI Software

5848 RIDGE RD

CLEVELAND, Ohio 44129-3166

United States

xxx-xxx-xxxx Fax -- xxx-xxx-xxxx

www.lindsaylohanmusic.com is

Registrant:

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

1755 Broadway:

New Media

New York, NY 10019

US

newmedia@umusic.com

001-212-3730600 Fax: 001-212-3312474

Domain Name: LINDSAYLOHANMUSIC.COM

Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc.

Administrative Contact:

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

1755 Broadway

New Media

New York, NY 10019

US

newmedia@umusic.com

001-212-3730600 Fax: 000-000-0000000

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

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

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

New movie and Leggings line

Can someone please add the following to the article

New movie titled "Labor Pains" [1]

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

New Leggings line [2] —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)

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)

Why is this Article so Long?

Really...especially the personal life section, and do we need to subsections with lengthy details on individual arrests? Anarchonihilist (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

She, like Britney Spears, and other young celebs, generate a lot of media coverage so the article seems to be a magnet for every detail and citing. It should be cleaned up but it's an overhaul process followed by housekeeping. Banjeboi 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blood Alcohol

Under "July 24, 2007 arrest"

"...her blood alcohol level was tested at between 0.12 and 0.13 percent - above the California legal limit of 0.08 percent."

I realize this is the wording from the source, but it's mathematically wrong. 0.12 should read as "12%", not "0.12%". The difference is two orders of magnitude, or 100x. If you really had a BAC of 0.12 %, you likely drank a teaspoon of beer.

The line should read as follows, "...her blood alcohol level was tested at between 0.12 and 0.13 (12 to 13%) - above the California legal limit of 0.08 (8%)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidsimmons (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. The legal limit is 0.08% (that is, eight-hundredths of one percent). Read Blood alcohol content. Someone with a BAC of 12% would probably be dead. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001's right. A human body contains about 5 liters of blood. 12% of 5 liters is .6 liters of alcohol. Beer is about 5% alcohol, so to drink .6 liters of alcohol would require you to drink 12 liters of beer, roughly 6 six-packs. That ignores the fact that your body would have to somehow magically excrete the water in the beer while retaining all the alcohol.
Kww (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Try looking to a source such as webmd (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/alcohol-abuse/blood-alcohol); I bet they know a thing or two more than the sources claimed at the bottom of wikipedia's page on the same topic. Are there percent signs in the notation on webmd's site? No, not one. So why the discrepancy? Because super-smart American culture has trained folks to say "percent" when talking about BAC, even though it's [usually] inaccurate. If you don't trust webmd to know a bit about BAC, go ask a doctor or chemist or somebody, I have.

Also, I'll address your math. You did your calculation with beer. Personally, I know several folks who have successfully drunk a lot more beer than that in one sitting. That notwithstanding, what about folks who drink stronger (100 or 150 proof ) alcoholic beverages? You're saying they can't drink more than a liter or two before croaking. Again, there is a significant population who have done that on several occasions and lived to tell about it. Also, using your numbers: 5L of blood in a human -> 0.02% is 0.0338140227 fluid ounces BUT a 20oz beer with 5% alcohol has one whole fluid ounce (1oz), nearly 30 times the amount that would get you to 0.02%. I know your body filters some of the alcohol out, but not that good. Check your math again.Reidsimmons (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're digging yourself in deeper, Reidsimmons. WebMD has no percent signs because they use widely accepted standards that omit the percent sign. This is simple biology. A human body cannot tolerate 12% alcohol. That is medically impossible. And Kww didn't say you can't drink more than one or two liters (i.e., physically impossible to drink that much). He said someone would have to drink more than 12 liters of beer with all the water removed to achieve a BAC of 12%. Let's use a little common sense. Ward3001 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just use per mil (‰)? And even 1% BAC would be 2½ times the normally lethal amount (which is 4‰)84.238.113.244 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Ronson

You wanted a respectable publication to mention the relationship: here you go.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And nowhere in the article will you find confirmation from either Lohan or Ronson. In fact, the only response from either of them is: "Ronson’s response was succinct but deadly: “Are you retarded?”" Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LA Times also had a meta-article about them: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story Siawase (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, no confirmation from either Lohan or Ronson. There is a lot of reference to "gossip media". So far this is mainly a story on the tabloid stories about Ronson and Lohan. Not exactly the kind of reliable confirmation of information required by WP:BLP. Ward3001 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. Neither person in a relationship is required to explicitly talk about it before we can write about it. That would be ludicrous. The most reputable newspaper in the world has stated, as fact, that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship. The Times is not a tabloid, it is a broadsheet newspaper with rigorous fact-checking processes and what it says on almost any topic can be referenced.

You talk much about WP:BLP. Show me where in WP:BLP it states that we are not to mention someone's significant others when we have reliable references to back it up. As the LA Times wrote, "we've reached a moment in which the Lohan-Ronson pairing can simply be reported as a fact because people have, you know, eyes". I will write up a paragraph using these two sources and any other reputable ones I find - it is absolutely acceptable on Wikipedia to add new information as we find it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Have added information to personal life section. Also found an article from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/gayrights.celebrity?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

This really isn't a rumour or secret by any stretch of the imagination. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What you say is even more nonsense. How else are you going to know if someone is lesbian if they DON'T talk about it, unless they have sex publicly (and don't give me the crap about them kissing in public; Madonna and Britney Spears kissed in public and no one is writing that they have a romantic relationship). Yes I do write a lot about WP:BLP because it is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia (something that I'm sure you would prefer to ignore). It is fundamental not simply because it is the basis for quality writing, not simply because it pertains to the lives of living people; it is fundamental because it affords Wikipedia legal protection against lawsuits for libel. I suspect you have not read it in it's entirety or you would know that (on second thought, maybe you have read it but decided it's not important). You want something directly from WP:BLP. Here it is:

Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies.

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively.

You can write what you wish, but if it stretches the truth (i.e., is not clearly verifiable with a reliable source), it will be reverted. If you choose to edit war about it, you will be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You really are approaching this a very aggressive perspective, aren't you? All I've done is provide reliable, verifiable (and high quality) sources to substantiate the stories of Lindsay's relationship history and you've responded by accusing me of never having read WP:BLP, which I have, many times (more times than you, I bet), the last time being just before I wrote the above post to ensure that it hadn't changed, you have lectured me on the importance of WP:BLP, and threatened to have me blocked in an extremely unpleasant tone. All this and I have never even set foot on this article before. Assume good faith please. Wikipedia is a harsh place without it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back at Ward3001's version. The lack of confirmation from either party is an important point, and the "breath of fresh air" crap is completely unnecessary. I've tried a few times to just delete these silly love-life sections from celebrity articles, and can't make that stick, but there really is no reason to have them. Whom she dates and what she does with their genitals is really of no import in an encyclopedia. Even when confirmed, there's very little reason to have them. Unconfirmed, it's just gossip.
Kww (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that someone's love-life is categorically unencyclopedic? There's nothing to support this in wikipedia's policies, nor is it something other encyclopedias categorically shy away from. And since you say you can't make your deletions "stick", it's obviously not something that there is consensus agreement about either. Siawase (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that my paragraph takes into account what the sources say, which is that Lohan and Ronson are in a relationship. The sources I have used are reputable, they are national broadsheets that employ fact-checking and aren't in the habit of libellous gossip-mongering. Furthermore, I am making no assumptions about the sexuality of Lohan and Ronson: I neither know, nor care whether either of them is actually lesbian or not. What cannot be denied, however, if one reads the sources (and indeed, checks google news for more similarly upmarket publications) is that these two are in a relationship. Ward's version not only ignores this, but employs weasel words in order to suggest the opposite. WP:BLP is being bandied about a lot, and I agree sensitivity should be taken when writing about the personal lives of celebrities, but there is a difference between sensitivity and censoring. WP:BLP contained no guidance to the effect of "ignore high-quality journalism". There is no violation of WP:BLP to state facts and to supply references with which to verify them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the weasel word is yours: "relationship". I am in a "relationship" with lots of people, but no one uses that word to describe our friendship. There is powerful inneundo in that word. And I have not denied that they are friends, that they have been seen publicy together. I have simply not led everyone to believe that it is more. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

...ok, if that's the way you choose to interpret that word, we can add the word "romantic" in front of it to make it perfectly clear for you. I have no desire to "lead" people to believe that Lohan and Ronson are in a romantic relationship either, what I want to do is use three national broadsheets to calmly and non-hysterically mention that they are together (romantically). You have to agree, surely, that The Times is a reputable publication which employs fact-checkers, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But what are the facts? That Ronson and Lohan have been seen together a lot, in positions and circumstances that make people think that there is a romantic relationship between them. Many gossip columns have stated that there is one. Those are the confirmable facts, and that's what the LA Times story you quote says, and then spends a lot of time discussing the ins and outs of journalism about gay relationships when one or both parties hasn't publicly stated that he is homosexual or bisexual. Not a bit of that is important enough to be in the article, and most of it isn't even relevant to the article.
Kww (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I am not trying to quote any gossip columns or tabloid rags. I am trying to use three (or two, if you don't care for the LA Times) reputable, national broadsheets to state that the two are romantically involved. I am not attempting to insinuate anything that can not be clearly referenced by this articles. I am not trying to state that either of them is gay. I don't really see what wrong with adding a sentence or two about there with such firm sources. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(just putting a little note in the middle of this to say that there is no reason to discount the LA Times. It's one of the most circulated broadsheets in the US, and has won something like the third most pulitzers of any American paper. It's absolutely a WP:RS. Siawase (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm not saying that you are quoting tabloid rags. Your reliable sources aren't talking about a confirmed relationship between Ronson and Lohan. They are talking about how the gossip about them is of a flavor that surprises them, because no one is acting shocked about the lesbianism. It would go well in an article titled Gossip tabloid treatment of lesbian relationships throughout history, but they don't cover anything of interest in this article.
Kww (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. As I said, the reliable sources are mainly writing about the gossip and taboid sources. And until Lohan or Ronson make a public acknowledgment about anything more than friendship, the reputable sources know better than to say more. Ward3001 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're being very misleading. Of course who a person's partner is is of interest to this article. It doesn't warrant a large space, but then I'm not trying to give it one. Just because the broadsheets are talking about public reaction doesn't mean that they don't accept the relationship is there. The reaction of the world is the angle of interest to the broadsheets, not the relationship itself. And they are very clear that the relationship is real. The very first line of the Times article is, "So, Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." Not allegedly, not rumoured to be, is shacking up with another woman. That is a baldly stated fact, a fact that would expose them to a costly libel suit if untrue, and fact which has been vetted by the paper's fact-checkers, and got through. I don't see why we can't use that as our source? We are in the business of sharing facts, after all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's you who is being misleading with more weasel words. Neither Lohan nor Ronson have used the word "partner" (which clearly implies romance) to describe their relationship. You are simply assuming, quite unjustifiably, that they are partners, just as you have assumed that they have a "relationship" in a romantic sense. And Lohan and Ronson have not used the words "shacking up". To my knowledge, the only words they have used publicly are "friends" or "friendship". You may wish for it to be more, and you may prefer to ignore the fact that what Lohan and Ronson say about themselves is critically important to what is written here, but that's not the way it works with biographies of living people. Ward3001 (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in BLP does it state that the subject of the article must confirm each fact before wikipedia can cover it? Siawase (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Whether either person has acknowledged it or not is not the only standard by which a fact can be established. The standard is whether the claim can be verified/substantiated with reference to independant reliable media sources. Which, in this case, it can. Stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship without a source in a Wikipedia article violates policy - stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship and then citing a national broadsheet newspaper with fact-checking policies as the source for that information is responsible editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best language to use is, but treating this information neutrally and encyclopedicly with sourcing needs to happen. BLP is not violated when we have reliable sourcing, which we do. In addition to the ones cited above there's these. Frankly the personal life section should be trimmed of much of the voluminous car crash fluff and something about her new romance can easily be added without violating any policies whatsoever. Banjeboi 08:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the car accident segment should be shorter. It should be mentioned, but we don't need a blow by blow. Some of it was trimmed off in FortyFootEcho's big deletion spree [3], but more needs to go. (and some other things probably needs to be restored instead.) Siawase (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will give that section a copyedit. My problem is that I don't really follow Lindsay's life and might chop something critical off. Watch my edits. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, down to a much more sane size. I do think we do need to add stuff about her partying and notorious reputation in the press. Then add information on her relationship history, current relationship with Ronson, and possibly her relationship with her family, because they seem to get on quite well and I think this is probably notable in her circles. :) And then that will be comprehensive enough. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a great job cutting that down! The July 24, 2007 and August 23, 2007 accounts could probably be cut down even further. Your ideas for expansion sounds good. This old version [4] has sourced material, both on relationships and her partying. But some of the sources aren't the best, it'd be better to search people magazine, as they have probably covered most of this. It could probably be cut down a bit, and I don't think there needs to be a "relationships" header. Siawase (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper Calum best source [5], and if we're keeping the mention of when Lindsay got together with Wilmer, here's a source for that [6]. People on the feud with Duff ending [7] Here's an account of her partying ways that could be used to support a sentence on that [8] Siawase (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even with impeccable sourcing, why do you think the feud with Duff or dating Wilmer is important enough to mention?
Kww (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they have been very widely reported by the media, including by reliable sources, and wikipedia is supposed to represent all significant aspects of a subject that have been published by reliable sources. However, I think the Wilmer source is pretty weak on when they got together and it'd be better to just mention that they were dating in 2004, without specifying the timespan (unless someone finds a better source.) Siawase (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If we went by "widely reported by the media" as a standard, I could probably include a few lines about every bar she has ever been spotted in. Her notability is three-fold: 1) an actress; 2) a singer; and 3) a party animal. We tend not to emphasise number 3, because we aren't a gossip column. Even if it was, I don't see the Duff or the Valderama stories as being significant in any of the three lights. Fifty years from now, would anyone consider either of them to be a defining and memorable part of Lohan's life?
Kww (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree with Kww. This information about spats as a teenager and previous boyfriends needs to be done with consideration of WP:WEIGHT. There's a lot more to this than whether the information can be sourced. We could write endlessly about her life with sourced information, but is it all equally important? These are blips in the life of Lindsay Lohan. And in a few years, these personal matters will be even more trivial. Let's keep things in perspective. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for overwhelming coverage of them, just a sentence or two, which would not be WP:UNDUE. Lindsay and Wilmer has been given almost as much attention as her movies, and a lot of coverage from reliable sources.[9] [10] every bar that she's been spotted in has not [11] [12] [13]. (and no I'm not using WP:GOOGLE as final proof, but it does give a decent rule of thumb measurement of the scope of the coverage.) If fifty years from now they're completely forgotten, come back and edit them out then. It's like you're trying to WP:CRYSTAL to keep material out. I don't understand why you two are so adamant on this, but seemed not to mind the massive undue weight that was given to the car accidents. Siawase (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, did I say anything about the car accidents? Ward3001 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not, which was my point. You are very concerned about WP:UNDUE where her love life is concerned, but not when it comes to other aspects of her personal life. Siawase (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please practice your mindreading skills elsewhere. You don't know what I think about her car accidents. I simply pointed out the need to treat her personal life with consideration of WP:WEIGHT. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tweet tweet!

OK, everyone out of the pool and no splashing please. Lol! Seriously though we are making progress and everyone agrees that reliable sourcing and adhering to BLP are both important. I think it's reasonable to state something like Lohan's romantic relationship have also been widely covered, for instance with _____, ___ and ______. As of ____ 2008 she has been seen romantically involved with _____. I agree going into unneeded details isn't helpful but either is leaving out Valderama et al if it's been so widely covered that not even mentioning it will stir more drive by drama. Let's continue to clean up and source items and if we report things in a well written manner, I think, a lot of the vandalism will melt away. On another note I've cleared off most of what seems to be resolved talk page items, I'm not sure about the rest. If they are resolved please feel free to either mark them with {{resolved}} or even move them to the archives. Banjeboi 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Lohan, so the fellas I left in were because I don't know how long they lasted - I would to venture to say that anyone who was serious, however briefly, needs to be namechecked and referenced, even if nothing else is added. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic content as it stands right now [14] is fine, thought it needs more cleanup. Maybe move the entire relationship chunk down to the bottom of the Personal life section, because it feels a bit jumbled and not at all chronological right now, for example the life and style comment on her partying coming after the coverage of the partying. Sources from people.com for her relationships should be in the old version. [15]. Vilmer was her most significant boyfriend, not sure about the others, other than that Riley has undue weight right now. Oh and thanks for archiving the old talk benji! Siawase (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, okay, well if you want to rearrange that so there's no undue weight, that would be grand. I'm just wondering if anyone knows where we might be able to get some more images? Flickr's not turning up anything but the article seems a bit sparse. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lindsaylohanmugshot.jpg ? ;) I gotta leave right now, but I'll look into it tomorrow. Siawase (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did actually add that, although it's a DREADFUL photo... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A few of you apparently have no respect for the concept of consensus on Wikipedia. There has been no consensus reached about stating that Lohan has been "involved" (another term for "romantic relationship") with Ronson. This continues to be a point of significant disagreement, and if a couple of you continue trying to railroad your version of her "relationships" into the article without consensus, this is going to WP:ANI, and if necessary mediation and/or arbitration. Ward3001 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, we all seem to have a consensus to include this with you alone deleting. Banjeboi 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, look again. And consensus is not determined by voting. Ward3001 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson

POINT OF ORDER: A reminder that canvassing to sway an RfC is not appropriate on Wikipedia. An RfC is for the entire community, not a single group of editors with an established agenda.

Issue: Should terms that state or imply a romantic relationship (e.g., involved, partners) be used to describe Lohan and Ronson if they have not stated publicly that such a relationship exists?

• Neither Lohan nor Ronson have stated that they have a romantic relationship. To state or imply that they do (with the reasoning that they have hugged and kissed publicly) is a serious violation of WP:BLP, which states that BLPs should be written conservatively. Some editors have repeatedly used words such as "involved", "partners", or "relationship" (imply a romantic relationship and included in the same paragraph or section with discussion of other romantic relationships), offering as justification that Lohan and Ronson have been seen together publicly and have embraced and kissed publicly. But there is no reliable source that has indicated that either Lohan or Ronson have acknowledged a romantic relationship, and, in fact, one sourced quoted Ronson: "Ronson’s response was succinct but deadly: “Are you retarded?”". Unless either of the two make a statement confirming romance, WP:BLP demands, on the basis of conservative editing, that there should be no statement in Wikipedia indicating, implying, or hinting such. Ward3001 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the test is whether they have stated in public that one exists. If they had remained silent, I would have no issue with including a statement at the same level as any other involvement in the article. Faced with a denial, I think that BLP concerns are raised.
  My primary issue with it is one of significance ... I would happily remove all discussions of romantic involvement from the article, thus solving the problem indirectly.
  Kww (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ward3001 seems to have a severe problem with my use of terminology. To me, saying someone is "involved" or "partners" with someone with whom they are "in a relationship" is as obvious as the light of day that I am referring to those people as being in an ongoing romantic relationship. I would venture to suggest that most of the English speaking world would understand those phrases exactly as I understand them. Ward seems to think I'm trying to insinuate something that I am actually stating quite publicly, and I do not understand his objections to this. If he would prefer me to explicitly use the term "romantic relationship", I am willing to do so, as in my view the terminology I am using means exactly the same thing. I just don't think it makes for very good copy.

Furthermore Ward appears to be deliberately misrepresenting my views and arguments. I have never, in any post I have made to this page or elsewhere, on Wikipedia or the Internet, claimed that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship based on some photos of them kissing in public, and I defy anyone reading this to prove otherwise. To claim I am doing so is entirely disingenuous and an attempt to discredit me. In fact I have never seen any of these photos. I have said that Samantha and Lindsay are in a relationship, sorry, romantic relationship, because at least three national, reputable broadsheet newspapers with fact-checking policies and processes (One of which I read and this is how I came upon such information) have categorically stated that they are involved, sorry, in a romantic relationship. These papers are The Times, The LA Times, and The Guardian. All these publications are regularly cited on articles thoughout Wikipedia because they are bastions of high-quality journalism with sound fact-checking policies. None of these articles are ambiguous, suggestive, or require inference, they are all this-is-totally-libellous-if-it-weren't-true: "So Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." (The Times), "Lohan and Ronson are dating in a public way, with much photographic evidence." (The LA Times), "On the one hand another golden couple proudly joins the not-very-long list of out lesbian power players. One half of the couple is DJ and designer Sam Ronson...the second half of said couple is…Lindsay Lohan?" (The Guardian). This is not the insinuating, gossip peddling tabloid nonsense that Ward is claiming I am trying to insert (note he did not mention my sources at all). This is a fact being reported by some of the most serious mainstream media in the world.

Ward has also repeatedly misrepresented the contents of WP:BLP, it does not say that the only standard of evidence for a romantic relationship between two people is direct acknowledgement of one of those two people. It seems perfectly obvious and correct to me that neither Lindsay nor Samantha should consider it any of the media's business whether they are dating or not, and that neither of them should feel inclined to send out a press release about it. I would also like to point out to Kww that neither has issued a denial of the relationship, the "Are you retarded?" comment seems to me to be a "Isn't it damned obvious we're together?", and could also be seen as a "What the hell does it have to do with you anyway?". What WP:BLP actually says is "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." I think I have established that my sources are impeccable. Furthermore, I am not seeking to add any sensationalist claims - I find there nothing particularly controversial about the fact that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship, sorry, romantic relationship, and a brief sentence or two mentioning it with citations is absolutely fine with me. I do not desire to blow this up into anything more than just another part of Lindsay Lohan's life, which we are documenting.

In short, I am asking for an acknowledgement in the article of what The Times, *The Times*, has established as fact. I do not see this as a violation of WP:BLP, but an example to up-to-date responsible editing. If Ward finds my wording overly suggestive, he is welcome to rewrite it. But to continue to revert my work completely with the demand of a standard of evidence higher than not only Wikipedia, but mainstream media and every court system in the world requires, is unhelpful. I welcome input on this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not about you and me Dev920, it's about the contents of an article and Wikipedia policy. So stop throwing around all the accusations about me misprepresenting you or saying that you said this or that. I have not mentioned you once in the RfC until you brought it up.
• I have not misprepresented WP:BLP. You have put words in my mouth. I have said that WP:BLP says we are to edit conservatively when there is uncertainty or controversy about a topic involving a BLP. Now are you going to deny that, requiring me to uselessly post direct quotes from WP:BLP (again)?
• What is "as obvious as the light of day" to you is not to everyone else, Dev920, because everyone doesn't see things the way you do. Your interpretation of events is not everyone's interpretation of events.
• the "Are you retarded?" comment seems to me to be a "Isn't it damned obvious we're together?": Your interpretation, which you are entitled to, but you are not entitled to assume that everyone else must come to the same conclusions as you do.
• I stand by my position: If Lohan and Ronson do not acknowledge that they are in romantic relationship, it is not conservative editing (per WP:BLP) to imply that they are.
• Now, Dev920, please try to focus on the issues of the RfC and not me. Ward3001 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support _romantic_ relationship. I think enough reliable sources have already been produced to support including this material. The only BLP issue requiring a self-declaration is for adding categories about religion and sexuality. Their romantic relationship has now been widely covered by reliable sources which is what we need for BLP concerns. It's good to be cautious but the same standard is applied to all BLPs. Banjeboi 01:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)