Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Mugshot

While we're on the subject of BLP, is it actually necessary to have her mug shot in this article? I think her legal proceedings can be covered without visual aid. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the mug shot does not add anything of interest (except that someone arreseted for driving drunk, or indeed anyone on a mugshot, does not look their best). Arnoutf (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Wikipedia is not a class yearbook. None of the pictures are necessary but they all enhance the article. If anything this is the best picture because its the most real. The best pictures are those that are taken without the subjects knowledge or consent. In addition, the drunk driving arrest was a major part of her life and a picture relating to the issue is a great enhancement to the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position either way at this point, but I'm just curious whether many other articles have celeb mugshots. There are lots of them out there, some that look much worse than Lohan's. I checked a few that I know of (Nick Nolte -- a particularly bad one, Bill Gates, and Tracey Gold). None of their articles have mugshots. Ward3001 (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of turning Wikipedia into a "class yearbook" my concern is for Wikipedia policy on Basic human dignity. To make it clear, I don't like the idea of having a mug shot on any living persons biography. Notable exceptions would be people who are best known or only known for criminal activity, but in Lohan's case and sever other public figures who have gotten into trouble I think it only serves the purpose of mocking them, not enhancing the article in anyway. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I am really not that bothered about whether this particular image remains on the article. What I am concerned about is the general lack of illustration, which is why I added it in the first place. An argument could be made that given the sheer number of arrests, convictions, and general contact with the police Lohan has had (not the case with the other people mentioned, whereas Paris Hilton, who has a similar history, does include her mugshot.), it seems entirely appropriate to include the image next to the section describing police involvement, but if anyone can find other images to replace it, I'm fine with it being taken off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to muhshotson principle, if another free photo can be found. We don't use Larry Craig's myg shot, though we couyld. We don't have lurid pics of Mark Foley, though they can be found. It's pure sensationalism to use a mug shot. Jeffpw (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about this one way or the other, but I went googling for more info. Lohan's mugshot has been used repeatedly by the mainstream media to illustrate articles about her arrests etc. [1] so it's not something wikipedia unilaterally dug out of primary sources to mock her. In fact, her mugshot is so notorious that it's been used in advertising[2][3], something which I am not sure if it's an argument for or against inclusion in wikipedia. In addition to Paris Hilton, the article on Nicole Richie also has a mugshot, though looking at Talk:Nicole Richie#Mugshot, it seems it was partly justified there by arguing a mugshot was included in the Lindsay Lohan article at the time, so there might be a bit of a feedback loop going on here. This discussion: Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive_6#Mugshot, resulted in keeping the image, but to my mind it doesn't look entirely conclusive, and largely centers around copyright misunderstandings. Siawase (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I looked at [4] for more articles with mugshots. There were a few entertainers that I noticed, Biography of Frank Sinatra#Birth and beginnings, George Carlin#1970s, Billie Joe Armstrong#Personal life, Tupac Shakur#Prison sentence, Yasmine Bleeth#Drug addiction and arrest, Zsa Zsa Gabor#Legal difficulties, Andy Dick#Public incidents, 50 Cent#Early life and a full article just for the Mel Gibson DUI incident. All in all, my impression is that mugshots are used sparingly on wikipedia, but they are definitely included in other entertainer articles. I'm still on the fence, but looking above we seem to be mostly undecided or against the inclusion, so maybe we should just delete it? Does anyone feel strongly that it should be kept? Siawase (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I would much prefer that we replace the image with another better one than removing it altogether. The article is quite stark at the moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving this article

I'm planning on taking a stab at improving this article. After looking at reliable sources, these are some things I've been considering:

  • Cleanup/expansion of the acting career section, adding some comments on lohan's performance from co-stars etc, adding more reviews specifically about lohan's performance, clean up the box office numbers.
  • Right now the music section is a bit too big proportionally. (Lohan is predominantly an actor after all.) A lot of the material is very good, but maybe some of it could be moved to the individual articles for the albums. There's some need for cleanup also.
  • Cleanup of the personal life section (I'm slowly trying to sort this out. I think it would be most meaningful to try to make it all somewhat chronological.)
  • Cleanup of early life section and move material not pertaining to her early life to the general personal life section. I think this section can be quite short since her career began so early.

I plan on predominantly using magazine articles with interviews with Lohan as sources. I'll copy the article to my user space and work on it there, mainly because some intermediary versions might not be suitable to be up "live". If anyone wants to help out or comment in my user space that would be most welcome. Siawase (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally got around to starting on this. The work in progress page is up at User:Siawase/Lindsay Lohan WIP and, like I said, any input is most welcome! Siawase (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually still working on this! I renamed and moved the entire early life section down to the personal life section. Also expanded the material about Lohan's family, childhood, her parents conflicts and her father's legal troubles. Siawase (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The personal life section is really jumbled and all over the place. Just an idea, but would it make sense to possibly split it up under different sub-headers such as 'Politics" "High Profile Relationships" "Rehab" or something along those lines? TheGifted1 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to handle the structure issues in this article, and it's not just the personal life section.
I think it'd be better to try to create some inherently logical structure in the personal life section (like chronology) rather than just adding subheaders. Unstructured text with headers is still pretty unstructured. I also think it's a bad idea to add headers to very short sections of text. It brings undue weight and a single paragraph with a header would also likely encourage editors to expand that section beyond what is due weight.
The Business section is already an example of this. It doesn't need to be expanded further, in fact it's probably teetering on too much weight already, but since it's a separate top level section it seems too short and is tagged with an expansion tag. I think it might be better to start a general career section, or "Other" or something. I'd like to add something general about her influences (Marilyn Monroe and Ann-Margret) and her relationship with the paparazzi, neither of which would go smoothly into the article as it is now.
In a way I'd like to use a structure similar to the Britney Spears article (which is rated good article), because it makes the article flow better as a biography and shows the back and forth between personal and professional life. But it also makes it harder for readers to find specific information unless they already know at which time it occurred.
It's really hard to find BLPs of people similar to Lohan with a good structure to take inspiration from. The Angelina Jolie article is featured but has a top level section for her tattoos. Reese Witherspoon is also featured and has a more typical structure which I think works well, but because Lohan's personal life and career are more intermingled it's not self-evident to me that'd it'd work equally well here, but it's still the basic stucture I think would work best (and it's pretty close to what we already have in place.) Siawase (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Onceturn's edits

I support his conclusion that the information is unnecessary. Most actors and actresses leave a trail of projects that they were associated with for a while, and then abandoned. If someone wants to build a case that these particular abandonments are indicative of a behavioural pattern, then we need a reliable source that says that. Otherwise, it falls into the trivia category.
Kww (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm open to opinions. If enough people want the info out, that's fine. My major issue was with removing sourced information without explanation. That having been said, I do disagree that it isn't notable. Let's see if a few more opinions are expressed. I'll go along with a consensus, even a small one. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
These dropped projects might have been noteworthy when they were added, at a time when her career future was unclear. But now that she has completed one movie and is working on Ugly Betty, Kww's characterization seems pretty spot on; it's just the way it commonly happens for actors, projects fall through all the time. If reliable sources could be found commenting on why these dropouts are of specific significance (for example if there was a gap where she was unable to find work, or an unusual pattern of many projects falling through for a given reason) that might be good to include, but as it's written in the article now it's just a few projects that were dropped for the usual neutral reasons ("scheduling conflicts", "other offers") and the given refs are not easily reachable for further investigation.
And since the topic is Onceturn's edits (and hopefully he'll read this) I just want to point out that the new information he tried to introduce to update the article should really be sourced before being added. Siawase (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Now that we at least know Lindsay IS dating Samantha I think we should put her in the bisexuality category, not lesbian as it is right now. She hasn't said what she is, and we can only assume she is attracted to both sexes until further notice. At least, that's what I think. So..? Blindeffigy (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. Bisexuality isn't a "default" category, and in any case, that Courtney woman made comments to the effect that all the men Lindsay has gone out with were just her attempts to deny her true sexuality. It could be either way. I would be more inclined to remove all orientation specific categories and labels until Lindsay herself gives an indication to how she identifies and use the more generic LGBT ones, which will cover whichever way she leans. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me she didn't confirm anything. The radio show has her "laughing" whilst saying it as the host coyly teases her on the subject.--Koncorde (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, I've actually gone and listened to that interview now and I don't really see how we can interpret that as anything other than what it was - Lindsay Lohan being amused that the host asked her about Sam Ronson and giving a vague affirmation to indulge him. I don't really see how that could be interpreted as a joke, cos it doesn't seem that funny. Regarding the publicist, I think we're getting into a Neil Patrick Harris situation (whose publicist sniffily informed the press after Harris was seen out in public with his boyfriend that he was "not of that persuasion", and he came out publicly two days later) where the client is happily living their life out and in the open, and the PR is desperately trying to deny it. I think we should be including their quotes as part of our coverage, but taking their words over the direct confirmation of Lindsay herself I think makes us look very silly. Let's link the broadcast itself and let people decide for themselves. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have been split up, but I'll just reply here. The publicist's denial should absolutely be included. But mostly I think it's important that we refrain from making our own interpretations one way or the other of this by now pretty messy situation. I think it'd be more productive if we focus on sticking as closely as we can to how the most reliable sources we can find interpret and report on it. Right now I'm hoping BBC, AP or NBC (I think these were the most reliable sources doing the initial reporting on the radio show) will report on the publicist denial, and then we can take their cue on how to cover the situation in the article here. Siawase (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The "joke" is the media enthusiasm for her being a carpet muncher, and her playing to it. We can state what has been reported, the event, the situation, the time and date and we can state the response. But adding LGBT (or reporting her lesbianism/biexuality as fact) is too quick and open to dispute. See the whole Mel Gibson/Anti Semitic argument for what that can turn into :D --Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this is some kind of American humour that I don't understand, but I don't really see how lying to a radio show host is somehow funny. I mean, I didn't hear anything in her voice, tone or words that implied she was in any way being sarcastic or teasing. It seems to me that the host has a few seconds to go, he abruptly changed the subject from plan crashes to Sam Ronson, Lindsay laughed because that's all everyone wants to talk about and she thought it amusing because she doesn't see it as relevant, and then she gave a straight forward answer to a straight forward question. I don't really get how that's "playing along" with anyone. Really, I'm not being sarcastic or wilfully ignorant to score points, I really don't get how anyone could see that as being some kind of joke.
In any case, I think the text we have in the article at the moment on the topic is the best we can do in the face of conflicting statements. I think that should stay there until further developments, which probably won't be too long... Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not lying? He asks a cheeky question "how long have you been going out" she laughs in a "haha very droll" fashion and then says "a very long time" to give him the answer he wants. I mean you could read it as an open confession, but her tone implies otherwise. On another note, I don't know any girl who doesn't know how long they've been going out with someone down to the half day :D --Koncorde (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dev920. Her tone doesn't sound like she's lying at all. She gave a little laugh at first because how quick he changed the subject to personal matters but then answered him truthfully and then said "thank you very much" when he said they make a lovely couple etc. I say leave it as it is until further developments.TheGifted1 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone could reasonably claim that she is anything other than bisexual; it is proven. Therefore, bisexual and LGBT categories should be added to this article. Werdnawerdna (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, bisexuality is not proven. So Lindsay Lohan previously dated men and is now in a relationship with a woman. This is not indicative of bisexuality. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation of being attracted to both sexes, not a behaviour wherein if you have had sex with both genders you remain bisexual forever. She may have not been attracted to those men, she may identify as a lesbian, there are any number of reasons that she may not be bisexual and we have no reason to assume so just because she has had relationships with both sexes. We can't be making assumptions while she is alive and available to explain how she feels about her sexual identity. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap you people are annoying & hypocritical o.O . I thought you had to just accept what someone says, and not pick your own way of interpreting it? Apparently not. You can do that with other articles, but not this one? Okay then, makes perfect sense. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's PROVEN she's bisexual, but it's the most reasonable thing to say right now. She's obviously attracted to women, and apparently due to her past is attracted to men -- what does not say bisexual about that? Until she says something herself we can only assume such. God, get a fucking clue, please. Blindeffigy (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that we do not know who Lindsay Lohan is attracted to. Countless gay men and women throughout history have had relationships with the opposite sex and known exactly who they were. Similarly, people have had one-off relationships with the same sex and continued to identify as straight. Only Lindsay Lohan, or one of her friends/relatives, can say what's actually going on here. Issues of sexual identity are incredibly complex and we cannot be stating anything like that as fact. What we know now is that Lindsay is in a relationship with a woman, and I think LGBT categories cover her fine for now. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw.

How about just LGBT? No 'Lesbian', or 'Bisexual'. Just LGBT? Come on, it's obvious that she is. We have enough evidence, and her publicist denying something is like me denying something for her. She's said they were dating, no matter how you interpret it or not -- she said it. How about just 'LGBT Actors' & 'LGBT Singers'? It's a fair settlement. Since we don't know, we have to go with what we've seen. Until she comments on it herself completely, just put here there. Blindeffigy (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you. In fact if you look at the article history, that's exactly what I did, but someone else took the LGBT cats off. :( Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well. She has willingly admitted she is a relationship with another woman. Regardless whether she might personally identify as lesbian or bisexual, the LGBT categories definitely still apply here and should not be removed. TheGifted1 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the LGBT categories again. Please stop adding them until there is a consensus to do so. JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? There's literally no reason to remove them. It's just people who are stubborn. Blindeffigy (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Umm, it's not a matter of stubborn - it's a matter of being correct. Whilst a dispute still exists - however tenuous via her Spokespersons denials are - it exists all the same. I don't understand the need to rush to categorise someone, particularly in a way that sets Wikipedia up to be prosecuted.--Koncorde (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's being stubborn. Remove all the LGBT categories from Walt Whitman, please. He never said anything during his lifetime about his sexuality, and his art could be just art. Just because Lindsay is alive it doesn't mean anything. If she died tonight would we keep the LGBT categories? Stop being pretentious, fuck. Blindeffigy (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do some people not accept she's bisexual? To claim that she is straight is disproven by her current relationship with Samantha Ronson, which is definitely sexual. To claim she is fully lesbian is ridiculous, because, prior to beginning her relationship with Ronson, she slept with a long list of males, as can be seen from her NNDB page NNDB, amongst many other sources. A real lesbian would not freely choose to sleep with so many men. Werdnawerdna (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not within the scope of Wikipedia to digest the news reports and come to a conclusion about how Lohan self-identifies. That's the whole issue. She hasn't said, and we cannot use synthesis to decide how to categorize her, or anyone else. You are certainly free to draw your own conclusions, but to publish it on Wikipedia, ain't gonna happen. Also, NNDB is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, so what that website says has no weight here. Finally, don't generalize too much. I've known a lot of "real" gay men who spent some considerable part of their youth sleeping with women. I've known "real lesbians" who married and had children. As someone else said, sexual identity is more complex than that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-37307.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.177.70 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently she now officially doesn't want to classify herself: "Would she classify herself as bisexual? "Maybe. Yeah." Lesbian? "No." She goes on, "I don't want to classify myself.", from Harper's Bazaar December 2008 issue[5]. Siawase (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Maybe, yeah." response is probably sufficent to add the bisexual tag. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think keeping the generic LGBT category is closer to how she defined herself, ie "I don't want to classify myself." is a stronger, more definitive statement than "Maybe. Yeah." But either way we should probably include the full quote I posted above in the article so the readers can see it for themselves. Siawase (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
She is asked if she classifies herself as bisexual. Her first word is "Maybe." Then after a moment's thought she agrees fully, "Yeah." It is not "Maybe, yeah" or "maybe yeah" but "Maybe. Yeah." And then she says she is not lesbian. What is the excluded middle? What is bisexual erasure?MerriFunn (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
She says "Maybe. Yeah." and then qualifies that by saying "I don't want to classify myself." But you think we should disregard the last sentence out of concerns of bisexual erasure? I think Lohan's self-identification should take precedent here, regardless of opinions about how valid it is. Siawase (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
She didn't define herself as "LGBT" ("generic" or not)! She most definitely said she is NOT lesbian. She is not gay or transgender either. If someone is born in the US, lives in the US, has a US passport, then we can use the category American. Sexuality is no different. If LL were 6'11", we could call her "tall", whether she said, "Maybe. Yeah. I don't want to classify myself as tall" or not. And agreeing that one is bisexual is not inconsistent with an unwillingness to define oneself by sexuality. I am bisexual, but I am many more important things before that. Nevertheless whoever (straight, gay, lesbian, or non-self-classifying) denigrated bisexuals in front of me would feel the force of my anger MerriFunn (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As the comment immediately above this one points out, Lindsay Lohan is bisexual. That is a major part of who she is, in the same way as it is fact that she is young, famous, American, female and attractive. The large majority of the general public now regard her as bi. I cannot see it as credible that she quickly converted directly from straight to lesbian, nor is there a case for claiming that she is straight (whilst Samantha Ronson is butch, she still has a woman's body, which a straight female would not be attracted to). Whilst it is not unusual, especially in the entertainment business, to have a relationship with a person whom one does not find attractive, even to be 'gay for pay', Lohan would not do that, as she does not need to. She is in the fortuante position to have much more choice than most in who she sleeps with; due to her looks, fame and wealth. She was already successful, rich and famous before her relationship with Ronson began; she previously very frequently received widespread, international publicity from her partying and heterosexual activities. Werdnawerdna (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote that matters is "I don't want to classify myself." If she doesn't then neither do we. As per WP:BLP#Categories she has to publicity identify with the classification in question which she explicitly did not. Stuff in the article is OK as it is quotes. Categories cannot be justified on what she was quoted to say. "Maybe yeah" means she has not decided. It is her call as to what she considers herself and that is what we reflect in the article and categories. --NrDg 16:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing. She is LGBT. That's not something you announce; it's like being a racial color..you just are, you don't have to say you're white to be white. You don't have to say you have brown hair for other people to say "he has brown hair". If someone were to ask you what color my hair was after you saw me, would you say you couldn't answer because I never said it? She's LGBT. Give her the LGBT categories; it's not really a label as much as it is a common placement. She's in a relationship with a woman, and she is a woman -- that's LGBT. Can we settle on this? Blindeffigy (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly classifying her as LGBT without her identifying as such publically is assumption at best. While it may seem obvious nobody knows for sure about the sexual nature of her relationship with Ronson nor do we know if it's all just a big publicity stunt for that matter. Many adult men and women have had a same sex romance or sexual experience at sometime in their lives yet consider themselves straight. I hardly think something that could be classified as experimenting gives any of us the right to classify her without her doing so herself or at the very least without a long history of same sex relationships. If she never goes back to seeing women for the rest of her life after the recent events with Ronson that doesn't make her any more bisexual or a member of the LGBT community than any of the countless men and women who experimented with same sex partners in their youth. Even the LGBT article on Same-sex relationship states

"Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors. People in a same-sex relationship may identify as homosexual, bisexual, or even occasionally heterosexual. Equally, not all people with a bisexual or homosexual orientation seek same-sex relationships. "

Saying sexual orientation is like being a racial color is completely wrong and even more so in the case of Bisexuality. Regardless of whether a person wants to be a race or not they have no choice but to be that race. A person who spent decades being totally heterosexual may decide to experiment and decide that they enjoy same sex activities and become homosexual or bisexual. There are an obscene amount of documented cases of women experiencing sexual trauma at the hands of men and becoming lifelong lesbians afterword and there are some amazing statistics that show huge numbers of straight identifying people have had a same sex encounter at some time in their life.

Not to mention considering her documented substance abuse, erratic behavior, attention seeking behavior, stressful life etc... It's not beyond a shadow of a doubt that this relationship may not have been what it seemed for any number of reasons also lending credence to why she's chosen not identifying herself as bisexual. If there's no implicit agreement on her part or it is beyond a shadow of a doubt we can't make that classification.:~:~:~:~--Nefariousski (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Nefariousski (talk)

Removed LGBT classifier due to consensus on her having Unlabeled Sexual Orientation which she has openly stated. Lindsay is the ultimate credible source regarding her sexual identity and she's openly stated she does not choose to be labeled. Until she states one way or another we can't make that decision for her.--Nefariousski (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, first of all there is no 'deciding'. You don't decide to be emotionally & sexually attracted to someone, you decided to explore, that's about it. Secondly, fuck it. Put whatever you want about her, completely done with this. Blindeffigy (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that some people migrate from one orientation to another, or bear latent attractions that don't surface until later on in life. It's possible she was straight, but later progressed into bisexuality, or homosexuality. Speculation aside, I don't see any problem with listing her in the LGBT category, so long as her sexual orientation isn't elaborated upon. Simply having her in the category should be fine. It's apparent that anyone who carries on relationships with members of the same sex is either gay or bisexual, at the very least. "No labels" is more or less a matter of the person's opinion or beliefs, and should have no bearing on medical, scientific or otherwise encyclopedic classifications. (such as LGBT) Remember that the LGBT category is a simple encyclopedia classification. It's the same thing as categorizing lawn-mowers as lawn tools, even if the mower is advertised as "not a lawn-mower." I mean, it's still a lawn-mower. 70.153.117.75 (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Newest info

According to this website:http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=240802&showcomments=true&rss=yes The Daily Star report that US TV network HBO are interested in making a TV series starring the three tabloid terrors, in a style similar to Friends and Ugly Betty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.103.135 (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama comment

I think a section should be added to the personal life section about her comments about Barack Obama being "colored". http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450347,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneypendle (talkcontribs) 18:43, 30 November 2008

Please wait for the inevitable denial or refactoring by Lohan or her spokesperson. Sometimes these things amount to something; sometimes they don't. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to grab the latest word from the headlines and blow it out of proportion. We can wait for the dust to settle. Ward3001 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This already is pretty old news, a few weeks anyway. As far as I've seen, there have been no comments on this from Lohan or any representatives of hers. And in the words of Carla Sims, communications director for the NAACP in Washington, D.C.: “Sometimes you have to look at the intent…but the word ‘colored’ isn’t derogatory,” “Clearly she’s [Lohan] an Obama supporter.” “There’s really no problem with what she said,” “In her excitement, she was acknowledging that color was not a barrier in the populace choosing Obama.”[6] Siawase (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
In a way, you reinforce my point. We don't need to immediately jump when a single word makes the gossip headlines and add statements in the Lohan article. We wait for reactions. And it seems that the NAACP's reaction tells us that the comment is not noteworthy. If she had referred to Obama as a "person of color", it probably wouldn't even have been discussed. Ward3001 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I have a hard time seeing what of weight this contributes. I can see why the media jumped on this with glee, because of the racist implications. But when you look at it in context, that falls apart pretty quickly. What remains is at best an implication that Lohan is a bit of an ignoramus, and that area is much better covered by a discussion of her education etc. Not by dredging up amusing instances of her expressing herself poorly. We don't cover the "adequite" incident either ([7] [8]) (nor do I think we should) and that got a lot more traction than this Obama incident. Siawase (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh, call me ignorant, but what's racist about coloured? It seems kinda awkward, but racist? Please explain? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You're from the UK, aren't you? I think "coloured" is quite neutral in the UK, while it carries a more loaded meaning and history within US culture. It's not really out and out racist so much as it's antiquated and not the most politically correct term to use anymore. Colored covers some of this. But of course, all this is mostly about the media doing their usual duty of whipping up controversy. Siawase (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Right. I think it has different connotations in the USA and Britain. In the USA long ago it was the next step up from using the "N" word; it was seen as a slightly more respectful term (the NAACP, whose title includes the word "colored" was created during that time). As time passed and other terms came into being, such as African-American, it was used less and acquired a more pejorative connotation. See Colored. Today some (perhaps many) African-Americans would take offense at use of the word, although "person of color" is acceptable. I'll defer to British Wikipedians to explain how things are there. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, coloured was the most commonly used term in the 50s and 60s to describe non-whites. It was then an acceptable and preferred term. It is now generally considered to be archaic. Many people find the term offensive, but it is still used quite often (especially by older people) without any offence intended, as a neutral term. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems a bit closer to the US than I'd have expected. Daniel Craig used the word "coloured" while congratulating Obama,[9][10] no one seemed to take notice, but then again, he didn't use it to directly describe Obama. Siawase (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Ronson/Loveline

I hope I'm not opening a whole can of worms again, but I decided to do a very WP:BOLD deletion and cut out the entire loveline paragraph from the samantha ronson section. It was a somewhat ambiguous confirmation (now superseded by an actual confirmation,) and some back-and-forth speculation. Since Lohan has now spoken openly about the relationship, I don't think it contributes much of substance to the article anymore. Siawase (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Betty episodes

In an August 11 blog post linked from Lohan's MySpace page, she says she will shoot three more episodes of Ugly Betty: "in 4 days i am back off to NYC to start shooitng 3 more episodes of Ugly Betty. the cast of the show is really great and fun to work with and i enjoy shooting in NY."

The post is mentioned on ET's website (I can't link to it here due to WP's spam blacklist). Nothing on the post says if they are among the "five episodes of Ugly Betty next season" that this article already mentions. --an odd name 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Her character, Kimmie Keegan now has a page. We can put a link there Bep-and-matt (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated the info on Ugly Betty to reflect that all Lohan's episodes have now aired, and added the link you suggested. Siawase (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bumping this downwards for new discussion. I removed this [11] addition of the rumors that Lohan was fired from Ugly Betty. The sources are all lousy, and they all seem to originate with a "source" that talked to NY Post, which itself is not the best of sources. Without an actual WP:Reliable source that confirms that she was even originally supposed to be in six episodes, this is pure tabloid speculation. (Do we even have a single reliable source that even bothered to repeat this speculation?) I don't think it should be added to the article at all, but if it were to be added it should definitely not be stated as plain fact "her six episodes were cut to four, the end." but the iffy sourcing would need to be explained in the article text. Siawase (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Half-sister

I removed the sentence about Lohan revealing she has a half-sister, since according to the source used[12] Michael Lohan "strongly denies his daughter's claim" and "believes there is a '99 percent chance' Lohan's MySpace message was actually written by her girlfriend, Samantha Ronson." I don't think this should be added to the article until the father confirms it, or we have stronger sources. If it has to be added right now, the father's denial must be added as well to keep it WP:NPOV. (which in my opinion just makes the whole thing sound absurd, which is why I think it should be kept out for now.) Siawase (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13