Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Dina Lohan a former Rockette?

Just wondering why this article describes Lindsay as the eldest daughter of "a former Rockette" whereas it has been well established that that particular claim was false. The page on Dina Lohan recognises that in the "controversy" section (cited source: [1])- why is it still reported as fact here? Omgplz (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at reliable sources (magazines), and almost every article about Lindsay Lohan mentions "Dina Lohan, former Rockette," like a homeric epithet or something, but it's never explained or expanded upon. It seems to be a free floating unsubstatiated factoid. I deleted it here since it's not that important to this article and it'd take up too much space to explain the controversy. Since it's already covered in the Dina Lohan article, better to leave the whole thing there, since it relates to her. Siawase (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (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)

Lohan and Ronson Harper's Bazaar statements

Just a note that there's a new statement from Lohan, in Harper's Bazaar: 'Lohan, however, is unsurprisingly coy when she replies by e-mail: "I love the Ronsons. They're close to my and I respect all the work they do. Samantha and my relationship is a private matter.'"[2] (this isn't something I suggest we include in the article, more of a "for reference" thing.) Siawase (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it should be in the article. Why not use the last sentence of her statement in place of the publicist's "wants to keep her private life private"? We'd be closer to the source for a view on the relationship. Tabercil (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs a "[sic]" or two in there, since it is apparent that no one ever taught her how to construct an English sentence, but in general, I prefer to include statements directly from a person.
Kww (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, my main concern was the muddled language, but I didn't really take into account that it might be preferrable with a quote straight from her. "Samantha and my relationship is a private matter." would be the only part that's relevant here. Basically, I'd be fine with including that instead of the publicist statement (with a sic, of course). Siawase (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's comments from them both: http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/the-royal-ronsons-0908-2 . Please excuse me if I fail to reply quickly, the death of Jeffpw has come as a major shock and I'm really not feeling that great. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was shocked too, and I just met him. :(

Your comment made me realize we should probably include Ronson's comments from this article instead of the "retarded" one we have now, since it's much more coherent. (and a better source?) It's a bit long though, and I'm unsure how to size it down. (I hope you don't mind I moved your comment, just trying to keep the discussion together in one place) Siawase (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mind that you moved it, though I confess I was quite puzzled when it mysteriously vanished from the bottom of the page... :) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to add the publicity stunt angle, I think this could be used as a source: http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid59215.asp?page=1 (It's pretty lengthy but I didn't see anything else new/useful in there, though I just skimmed it.) Siawase (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New comments by Ronson

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24328392-5001026,00.html : "DJ Sam, who spent most of her short time in Sydney last week communicating with Lohan, got up from her mixing desk at a top Los Angeles hotel and night club, Chateau Marmont, and declared on the mike to clubbers: “By the end of this year, my love will be Mrs Ronson.

“Tonight shows the power of a woman – to underestimate that is to underestimate the world.”" Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay/marrying/WhatEVAH!

The Sun reports that she's marrying her gay lover.

Go look for it. But I believe she isn't gay. And theres no point in asking people to put the LGBT categories on the article, because after extensive flamewars over at Talk:Paris Hilton I have been told "we don't do that". If sexuality is now so fluid, undefined and is to fluctuate weekly as fashion dictates, why have these categories at all. Should we add "Cat:Pansexual" to every article concerning a human being. Theres a very fuzzy line being drawn where you have to prove yourself REALLY gay before wikipedia says so. Bizarro. Or did we just breach the point at which wikipedia becomes a futile exercise in what is knowable about starlets who'll do anything shocking to keep the tabloids interested. Is a gay marriage, after the fact, still not enough for you people. So were labelling sexuality be committee now? /semi-flame --81.105.242.11 (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

if she is marrying a woman she is obviously either gay or bisexual, either way the LGBT-categories cover her.Chuletadechancho (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding whether or not to add her to the LGBT project here. --Superflewis (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The project inclusion has been there for a while. The issue isn't whether reliable sources have said Lohan is gay ... they haven't, and neither the article nor the talk page makes that claim. Reliable news sources have discussed her relationship with Ronson, and the discussion of that relationship with Ronson has generated discussion about modern tolerance of homosexual and bisexual celebrities. There isn't a BLP issue here.Kww (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; Lohan is of interest to people interested in LGBT-related issues, because of the way her relationship is discussed in the media. Inclusion in the project doesn't mean, or imply, that the subject is gay; only that she has a significant place in the study of GLBT questions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kww and FisherQueen. Moreover, there certainly has been more than enough coverage of the Lohan-Ronson relationship by reliable sources and this relationship is often characterized as romantic/lesbian/gay by such sources[3]. Adding the LGBT project template to the page is therefore appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding my voice to the chorus — the inclusion of the LGBT project template should be a non-issue. Including LGBT categories in the article is a different matter, but as Nsk92 says, there's been enough reliable source coverage of the relationship with Ronson to merit inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest tabloid addition on marriage with Ronson

This article says they are going to be married.

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2422386/Lindsay-Lohan-and-Samanth-Ronson-to-wed.html

"Samantha, 31, who gave Lindsay a 'commitment' ring worth $22,000 earlier this year"

"She said: “By the end of this year, my love will be Mrs. Ronson! Tonight shows the power of a woman – to underestimate that is to underestimate the world.”

Lindsay, 22,"

The story is also covered on:

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/news/ny-etloha115837840sep11,0,6900647.story

and here as well

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24328849-5012974,00.html

I think it should be included in the article

04:36, 11 Sept 2008 (EST)

ABC news is also on it, with quotes from Ronson that seem to confirm the rumor: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5782639&page=1 74.202.236.2 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Ronson announced plans for her and Lohan to be married", if you take the time to look at where the stories are originating, it's the London Sun, which clearly falls into the category of tabloid. This source is copied directly from the Sun, and this source says "according to the Sun" in the second sentence and "Britain's Sun newspaper reports" in the third sentence. There's nothing new here. It's the same stuff recycled to sell more tabloids. If we're going to add to this controversy, let's at least come up a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sources at hand aren't sufficient to justify a mention here. If the story makes it to a non-tabloid paper like the Los Angeles Times, then it can go in. The Sun and the New York Post referencing the Sun aren't reliable enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the ABC News story might be enough to justify something saying "In September 2008, media reported rumors that Lohan and Ronson planned to marry." That way, we're not saying "they're going to marry" (something which no reliable source has yet said), but "there are rumors that they're going to marry, and the existence of those rumors has been published in reliable sources." If you see the distinction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the distinction, but I think it's a stretch for us to report on a report of a tabloid rumor, especially when Lohan's rep calls the rumors "ridiculous". This is an encylcopedia, not a newspaper or TV news program. We went through this in the previous heated RfC when there was a push to add something about the report of the tabloid reports. There already is something in the article about Lohan and Ronson, and these recent reports on tabloid gossip add nothing new. If/when Lohan or Ronson state something that is published directly in a reliable source rather than through the tabloid conduit, then we may have something to add. Ward3001 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain why Ward is being so aggressive in claiming everyone has nicked their story from the Sun: my original link was from the Sunday Telegraph, an Australian newspaper obviously reporting news in its own backyard. Admittedly the Telegraph is a tabloid - but on the other hand, there's none of this "a source close to the family said..." that one would expect in stories made up to sell papers, you have straight forward names, places, and quotes, not only from Ronson herself, but from the club owner. Put simply, the Telgraph article wuld be pure libel if it weren't true. The Telegraph and the Sun might be tabloids, but this doesn't mean they have an obligation to make shit up when there's actual news they can be reporting instead.

But if tabloids are not your thing, Die Welt, a German broadsheet, also published an article, not only saying the same thing, with full detail, they put under a section entitled "Engagement of the Year". To claim that the story is made up, you're looking at literally dozens of high profile newspapers all over the world who are risking massive financial losses in the courts if there was any possibility this wasn't true. They're going ahead with it anyway. Massive media conspiracy to sell tabloids - or are the media simply reporting what everyone with eyes can see?

I get that people may have been wary about the original stuff we put in if neither pair had officially confirmed the rumours, but this round is bollocks. You have a direct quote from Samantha Ronson, the full context in which she said it, and a total lack of denial from either party ("Please don't believe the British press", is not a denial, its a non-answer). If this were any other star we would have added it immediately, but because its Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan some people are trying to deny all evidence to the contrary. Come on. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 10:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

UK broadsheet newspaper The Daily Telegraph have also at least reported on the tabloid reporting: [4]. --86.135.222.11 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As has The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4735124.ece Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 17:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

another thing people often don't realise about the "british press" is that there is actually a law in the UK forbidding the printing of knowingly false information. They quite literally have to get the information from somewhere. --86.135.222.11 (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This why I don't understand why people are claiming that these stories, with actual people named and quoted, are somehow untrue. Regardless of The Sun's liking for innuendo, it can't actually publish outright lies. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 17:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay's MySpace page

Should this page have the link to Lindsay's MySpace profile - www.myspace.com/lindsaylohan

Its a pretty active page & she blogs a hell of a lot!

Charrisonline (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Charrisonline

Apparently we already kinda do. I just noticed that the official link that's already in the article ( http://www.lindsaylohanmusic.com/ ) now redirects to Lohan's myspace page. But I think we should add a second link directly to her myspace page for clarity (ie, if someone comes here looking for a link to her myspace page they won't know to use the official site link.) I don't think we should remove the official link and replace it with the myspace link, because it might change from a redirect to a proper site once the record company starts promoting her new album. Siawase (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for ease of use a second link should be added. You can do this?

Charrisonline (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, since there have been no objections I went ahead and added the myspace link. I added it right after the official site since it seems best to group first party links together but I'm not sure if some other placement would have been more logical. I also noticed that lindsaylohanmusic.com was linked twice, so I combined those two links into one. Siawase (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

MySpace is specifcally mentioned in links to be avoided, #10: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. It can't be used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That section is prefaced by Except for a link to an official page of the article subject, which is what applies in this case. In addition, since you were editing the article text that mentioned myspace, that part was not sourced from myspace, but from reliable sources that mentioned Lohan's myspace blogs. There's no reason we can't include information from reliable secondary sources in the article. AP even confirmed with Lohan's publicist that a previous myspace blog was legitimate, if you want confirmation from a secondary source. http://www.usatoday.com/life/topstories/2008-08-29-4185344946_x.htm Siawase (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest to you that the sources you are referring to be actually placed with the sentence where the WP:BLP violations would be, not later in the article. You are obligated to specifically cite something like that, not stick the references after later sentences that by comparison are fairly innocuous. Until you do, the sentence must be removed. Meanwhile, I'm not convinced that the "Except for a link to an official page" applies to a social networking page, but rather a separate page. I will make inquiries regarding that issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your revert and just so I understand, you want exact quotes from Lohan in references calling Sarah Palin a homophobe? or ant-environmentalist etc? OR the sources we are using are fine, but we just need to place them better?TheGifted1 (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the latter. As it stood, the actual sentence referencing homophobia, et al, had no references whatsoever. I'm guessing the citations that follow the next sentence may be the ones intended for the homophobia statement, but aren't in the right place. The statement is potentially volatile enough that it just can't stay in the article without a direct inline citation following it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Confirms relationship with girlfriend Samantha Ronson for the first time

[5] [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinceseems (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the engagement rumor from the article. This radio show interview is a much better confirming statement, and her publicist outright denied the engagement, putting it at a different status the rest of the "no comment" material. Siawase (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely the radio interview is the best source we have and I would be keen to use it as much as possible. :) I think it may be better to state on the article itself that Lohan's publicist has outright denied the engagement rumours, seeing as they gained so much coverage, although perhaps specifying that the publicist denied the engagement and not Sam's comments about being married at the end of the year, though that should still be removed. Either way, whether they marry or not, we will appear more accurate. There's a good AP article that we may wish to quote [7]. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a mention of the engagment denial is really necessary, but it might be good to include it in the article for a while. BBC also has some good coverage of the radio show: [8]

Also, according to NY Post, Lohan made a statement to them in response to her father's latest rant, which included the following: "Samantha is not evil, I care for her very much and she's a wonderful girl. "She loves me, as I do her." [9] I don't think NY Post would have the gall to out and out fabricate direct quotes, but I'm still not sure it's a good enough source to use. Siawase (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with the claims of a relationship and glibly referencing AP pieces that take her comments out of context of the radio show. As a bio there has to be certainty, clarity and stuff other than masses of press speculation on a questionably toned response to a leading question.--Koncorde (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much context we haven't added, it was a question quickly thrown in after a conversation about the plane crash and she answered it pretty honestly. But more on my thoughts on that below. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, only or two sources on google news have put up Lohan's publicist's denial from TVGuide.com. I've done searches using both Sloane-Zelnik and Lohan publicist. None of the highly reliable sources that initially reported the radio interview as (possible) confirmation seem to have published the denial or put up any sort of retractions. Basically, I think what we have in the article now is an accurate reflection of how reliable sources have reported on this. Siawase (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe (could be mistaken) that the event that was taking place was a TVGuide show hence their apparent scoop.--Koncorde (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan style fixes

As user Myosotis Scorpioides inexplicably removed my message at their talk page, I copy it below:

Hello. I undid your recent style fixes to Lindsay Lohan, as good as you hoped they'd be. They turned many bracketed parts of quotes into meaningless and unintended wikilinks, and possibly did other weird things. (They're usually used to insert words for giving the quote context, as I did in the first two citations there, and as many others have used in the article and its cites.) --an odd name 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

--an odd name 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed your message because I had read it. It is my talk page, and you are allowed to remove messages once read. I am sorry my 'fixes' weren't to your liking. I was only trying to help. I will not be touching your article again.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not attack me by saying that I sought ownership (I didn't, and don't) of the article. Sources "should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." That's not my rule, it's a Wikipedia policy. I reverted it because (as important as style fixes are—I do them often) we shouldn't destroy the quotes' intent in the process. I reposted the talk comment because I linked to it in the edit summary I added, so that others could see why I rev'd; its removal means the summary is no longer useful and I should explain my edit elsewhere ("To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary 'see Talk'.").

I would've not replied to this if you were just misunderstanding, but when combined with lying, I won't accept it. --an odd name 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC) (Posted here as I am "not welcome" on their talk page. --an odd name 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Surely calling me a liar is a personal attack? And, by the way, at no point did I accuse you of anything.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You said above and in my talk page "I will not be touching your article again." Lindsay Lohan is everyone's article, not mine or anyone else's, so please explain what you meant by the statement. I admit that "lying" was a strong statement, and I apologize for it. What would you call it, then, when you say this is my article ("your article"; I guess you referred to me), though it is not? --an odd name 01:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I added them back, removing the changes to quote brackets. There was an " " added to a URL which caused a link to stop working; I removed that as well. That's what I ultimately intended; not stating that intent was another error on my part, for which I am sorry.

The quote brackets in question now have <nowiki> tags to distinguish them from the other text, as well.

Thank you for your style fixes, Myosotis Scorpioides. --an odd name 18:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)