Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 3

message: Today, 1 May 2006, zap2it.com reports—and UPI mimics—that Lohan slipped coming out of the shower and suffered a "hairline fracture" to her foot, leaving her "sporting a wrapped ankle and foot," according to the story. "I can't wear heels though," she's quoted as saying. "That's the bad thing." Nevertheless, she's supposed to have dropped to the floor and done 12 pushups during this press conference (?) in Los Angeles. As if that wasn't a miraculous enough recovery, Yahoo! news has Associated Press photos of her attending an event in New York today, wearing high heels! So, who do we trust, anyway?! ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't trust the entertainment news media, who can we trust? What will become of us? Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Oh, dear God (or whoever), no, not a whole planet of... of... GASP! Bill O'Reillys??!?!</sarcasm> ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That story is obviously not true. Only headlines should be included in this article. Lil Flip246 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we don't trust the "entertainment news" media

message: I went and researched this because I just can't believe it—sure enough, MovieWeb lists this film's release on 22 November 2006. For you young'uns (no dis intended [grin]), that will be the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of his older brother "Jack"... RadioKirk talk to me 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date for ''Bobby''

message: There was a significant amount of white space created by the table of contents.  I added the  to get rid of it.  Any thoughts?  Like/dislike? -- backburner001 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Contents edit

message: Lohan was one of the artists connected to the recent payola scandal involving Universal.  This Fox article actually quotes a memo about hiring people to call in to TRL and boost her ranking on the show.  Her wikipedia article mentions that her video reached #1 on TRL, so the payola stuff should be included.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195180,00.html
70.130.231.158 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This shows up twice in search: Fox News Gossip and salon.com, which got it from... Fox News Gossip. That's the reason why I (for one) did not write it in. RadioKirk talk to me 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Payola

message: I don't see anything about the "Firecrotch" incident where some random socialite with Paris Hilton in tow ranted and raved about how Linday Lohan was a "Firecrotch" and "Poor" because she was "only worth 7 million dollars". Maybe we shoudl give it a mention, just because it's so funny to watch on tape. The Fading Light 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly notable.  I've seen the video, it's just the drunk rantings of a somewhat sad socialite.  Not relevant to this article.  --Yamla 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But you have to admit that it's funny, as in "Look at the drunken idiot mommy, isn't he a pathetic sight?". The Fading Light 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Firecrotch

message: Does anyone think we should get a new pic for the box? I don't really think its that representative of Lohan in terms of look and style.--CyberGhostface 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easier said than done.  Finding a public domain image or one that we can use under the principles of fair-use is rather difficult.  --Yamla 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's harder than you think to find a pic. Also, the last one was a little worse than this. Yanksox 03:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That, and Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Even if it were, its hardly sexually suggestive.--Iorek85 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how its suggestive. I got it from the opening intro at llrocks.com. So obviously if Lohan is putting it on her own official page it can't be that bad.--CyberGhostface 14:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pic? 

message: The information in the article claiming that Lindsay has her "own" charity, Dream Come True, is wrong.  Lindsay has not been involved this group since 2002.  Consequently, she had nothing to do with the founding or operation of this charity -- she just attended a benefit or two back in her Parent Trap days!
:Okay. Do you have a reliable source for this information? RadioKirk talk to me 19:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream Come True 

message: I've researched this bit about Lohan bolting Bill and the reliability of any source therefor is dubious. The business about Lohan leaving to "stick to working with big-name directors now" appears to have begun with Roger Friedman of FoxNews.com, who says he got it from "(s)omeone in Lohan’s crowd ... at the overcrowded Hudson Hotel party," essentially admitting that this is unreliable. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see your talk page and discussion above. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lohan, ''Bill'' and "big-name directors"

message: I deleted the bill part of the filmography section because on the bill wikipedia page it said that linsdey lohan will no longer be lucy in the movie and will be replaced by jessica alba.
-monroylobo
:Please see your talk page and discussion above. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deletion

message: The article's main photo of her is pretty lousy-looking in my opinion. I think it should be replaced with one from . --Cybercobra 09:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those is less than 2 years old... and the site's main image is the same as this one :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, that site is blatantly violating copyright on most of those images.  Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.  --Yamla 14:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they violating copyright? Its her own official site! --Cybercobra 04:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hhhhmmm, I didn't notice that.  In any case, we can't use the images without violating her copyright.  At least, not unless we can use them under fair-use rationales.  --Yamla 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think you're overreacting on this. As long as the proper copyright is listed I don't see why a better picture shouldn't be posted.--CyberGhostface 16:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as proper copyright and a detailed fair-use rationale is listed, a better picture would be great.  --Yamla 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change main photo 

message: While I think the current pic is a lot better than the old one, you should add copyright information so certain people won't revert it. --CyberGhostface 13:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. And it was reverted back to the creepy one. I put a new pic in which has the proper guidelines so there's no excuse for changing it back.--CyberGhostface 13:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, while "creepy" is subjective, this newest image follows guidelines. The previous B&W was a potential copyvio and had to be removed ASAP. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think the other one really displayed her properly. I mean, if that was Lohan's new look, fine but I don't think she ever really was associated with it. But I was wrong for saying it was creepy, so I apologize for that.--CyberGhostface 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current pic 

message: I don't understand the need for the "famous for" bit in the bio box.  Isn't it enough to say she is an actress and singer as is the case in numerous other biographical articles?  Do we really need the POV of someone selecting the movies that she is famous for?   It's not so bad for Lindsay - she hasn't made too many films, but it's setting a bad precedent for the articles of other actors who have had long, successful careers.  Who decides what they're "famous for"?  It's really bad IMO.  Rossrs 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was based on box office, not POV, but perhaps I can come up with a better term... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: oh, and the "age 19" - it says she's born in 1986.  That suffices.   Are our readers so mathematically incompetent that we have to calculate her age for them? Rossrs 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted in the reversion, I don't think there's anything wrong with making things easy for people. We have differing cultures with different calendars, and a learning curve, to deal with ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  For one thing, I'm concerned with consistency.  That is, the bio box for Lohan should be basically the same in style and content as the bio boxes used in other articles.  This is the first time I've seen "famous for" and an age.  "Famous for" is not a good term.  From my perspective, for example, she's "famous for" having her photo printed in tabloids and behaving badly in nightclubs, because "famous" is a very POV adjective. You could call it "most successful movies", or whatever, but I still don't see a point and using box office as a basis is not necessarily an infallible barometer.  Some movies are wildly successful and profitable, and quickly forgotten, and the performer is not necessarily made famous as a result.   The concept reminds me of the little weekly brochures of new releases that my local video library hands out.  For a Lohan film it might say something like "Lindsay Lohan ("Parent Trap", "Mean Girls") stars in the new blah blah blah film"... it has a very fanzine ring to it, not encyclopedic, in my view.     As for the age, and making it easier for people, I think that an encyclopedia should not be about "making it easy".  It should serve to educate, enlighten and to a degree, challenge the reader.   Making it more accessible and providing more clarity, are good objectives, and this is largely a question of ensuring comprehensiveness of the article as a whole,  but saying that someone was born in 1986 and is therefore 19 years of age is a bit too much like "dumbing down", like "I've written an article, but to save you the strain of thinking, I'll do your thinking for you".  I'm not comfortable that any of our articles convey that message in any way.  It's assuming that potential readers have a very limited intellect and an even smaller attention span and that's a mistake.  We should not be bringing the content of our articles down to the level of the lowest common denominator and although this is only one small part of one article, it is a featured article, and is therefore likely to be used as a standard against which future articles will be assessed.  Rossrs 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Career milestones" is a very good choice. I still don't think it's vital to have that there, but hmmmm, if it needs a title, I don't think you could do better.  Thank you - much more suitable.  still don't like the age 19 though ;-)   Rossrs 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most kind, thank you :) I chose to include that as Lohan's is an unusual case, in that she's both an established actor and recording artist; I think the precedent is good in that someone seeing her in a TV interview and looking here for more information gets a quick answer to "from where might I know her?" or "where can I see her work?" As for age, well, it's an encyclopedia, and it's a quick tidbit of relevant information ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Click "edit this page" and you'll see it is a template that updates on the appropriate day. That's the beauty of it... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice idea, I respect that. But, I think Peyna is right on this. I think it's enough to say the year she was born and not add the age, its just a little "2006 - 1986 = 19". But on the other side: It isn't bad and so, let it stay unless we publish wikipedia as a print version(I think I have seen this in a bookshop recently...) --DocBrown 09:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous for

message: I wasn't saying this article doesn't comply with BPL, I've just seen this tag posted in a number of prominent pages that otherwise seems to comply with the policy anyway. Just seems like a standard tag for living people, but I am not sure Mad Jack 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. Well the template read, "This article should be edited in accordance with the policies and guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons", suggesting that more work was needed to comply. I can see, though, that it also suggests future editors need to keep the policy in mind when editing. Maybe the template needs clarifying language ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it now says "This article constitutes the biography of a living person and editors should keep this policy in mind when making any changes." Does that sound good? Mad Jack 05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that was my change, presuming it's not altered again. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: "is an American media-whore, actress, pop singer-wannabe"
Is this vandalism or is this actually factual? either way, the wording doesn't make it sound like it should be in an encyclopaedia.
:Vandalism... I think :) Mad Jack 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism? 

message: right|250px|thumb|
Why was this image on the main page, and no where else? We simply do not upload images to solely appear on the main page.  --  Zanimum 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main image was changed (with appropriate discussion) between the time it was chosen for the Main Page and the time it got there. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lohan on front page image a no-no 

message: From the second paragraph of the intro: "As an adult star, Lohan began to take on more varied roles and projects, including Robert Altman's A Prairie Home Companion."
I'm not sure if it's just me, but if I didn't know better, I'd infer from this sentence that she was a porn star! (And a quick Google of "adult star" [with quotes] seems to agree with me!)
--T. S. Rice 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindsay Lohan: Adult Star? 

message: haha, nice birthday present she got --Sirevil
:Haha yeah - I guess User:Raul654 has a new way up his sleeve of turning the featured article into a way to commemorate birthdays.  --NicAgent 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must've missed an important vote.  In any case, as a guy who uses a Lindsay Lohan avatar on digg, I very strongly support this.  --an odd name 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I just realized it now. Yeah, nice present I think. Question is: Does she look on wikipedia? ;) --DocBrown 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone have anyways of contacting her to tell her that? --Sirevil 18:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born July 2nd? 

message: That bar makes the page look ridiculous. Can someone please change it.72.80.37.6 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonstandard Pronunciation Information

message: Why do you just say she started her career 'on a soap opera' and not say which one?  It was, I am told, Another World, and she is listed on their official site, which you give a link to Norm Tered 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does say which one; just, not in the lead, where it doesn't belong :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Soap?

message: I'm surprised to find that there's no reference to the semi-popular internet meme "Lindsay Lohan Does Not Change Facial Expressions" lohanfacial.ytmnd.com/ I don't see any reason not to mention it, at least in order to redirect to another article with information about the meme. I'm not sure if I ought to add it (given the featured article status) so I'm looking for some opinions.   
    
P.S I'm not very experienced with the whole editing thing, I got some "conflicts" so I hope I haven't messed anything up.   
Robert Mason 05:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a relatively simple effort to compile images of a person oft-photographed and compare them as an "inability" to change facial expression; I could probably compile dozens (if not hundreds) more in minutes that disprove the "joke". While this would be a cute addition to a fan page, it is unquestionably fancruft and not for inclusion into an encyclopedia article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Meme

message: By the way, does anyone really have a source that Lindsay is a Roman Catholic? I'm aware that her family has been described as Catholic, but has Lohan herself been? She's into the whole Kabbalah thing now. Mad Jack 05:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my understanding is correct, it's because "Jewish" describes both the belief and the descent. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic category

message: Let me preface by saying that I am a fan of Lohan as an actress. Heck, I even liked "Just My Luck". But I am SHOCKED this article was made a featured article. Though it is well cited, it is overwhelmingly slanted to cast Lohan in a positive light. In the rare instances when citations of quotations are made where a critic has panned Lohan, the wording is light and airy. One would think given the overwhelming number of positive critical quotes included - where are all EXTREMELY positive - one would balance them out with some of the (many available) negative critical quotes available. As a reader of this article, one comes away with the impression that Lohan's career has left a 90% favorable impact on the critics community, and that's just not the case. Pacian 09:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's too positive, you should add (properly cited) criticism of some sort to it. I'm sure it's out there. Mad Jack 13:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: POV was addressed during this article's FAC; while it is possible to create a massive article with every positive and negative statement available, this article promotes the general consensus for each project and each notable private detail in a presentation that is as brief as possible. It is not even close to "overwhelmingly positive". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overwhelmingly positive article

message: You know, with the amount of vandalism that's been going on, all we've proved is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can vandalize. I don't think I've seen a single productive edit from an anon IP. So, when visitors come to Wikipedia and click on the front page article, half the time they see a vandalized version of the article. Mad Jack 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is just getting absurd. And I have been attacked for my role in reverting the vandalisms, and thanks to whoever blocked that IP. Tobes (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the semi-protect. Now I can go to bed. Tobes (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So..... does anyone know where we can outvote and override Raul's no-protection policy? Because it probably needs to be done, and very soon. I just clicked on the page and was offered only a single nugget of info on Lohan "This is gay". Imagine if it was a middle-aged, conservative woman who saw that. Do you think she would ever use Wikipedia again? Mad Jack 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't Raul's policy, this is Jimbo's policy. The idea is that Wikipedia should be as open to editing as possible. It looks terribly bad for the project when we can't deal with vandalism to the point that when we showcase our best articles, we can't allow people to edit them for fear of vandalism. The Featured Article of the day is practically protected anyway by the number of people and vandalism bots that are constantly watching it; most vandalism stays up for under a minute. The Disco King 16:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering there has basically been one bit of vandalism a minute for the past little while, staying up "for under a minute" is not particularly promising. I would imagine that the negative reaction by legitimate readers who stumble on the vandalism is far worse for Wikipedia than that of a would-be vandal who finds that he can not vandalize. Sure, it's a lose-lose situation, but I think it's clear we lose more people by allowing them to witness non-stop vandalism then by stopping them from committing it. Mad Jack 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the diff for today's changes. I noticed a number of positive changes. That's why we don't protect the daily featured article. Raul654 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the changes in that diff were reversions; of the two I see that weren't, one was good, the other was poorly sourced and had to be fixed. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, there's the fact that almost all, if not all, of those changes were made by registered users who would not be blocked in any case. Mad Jack 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, but 95% of those edits were made by registered users who would be able to edit regardless of the semi-protect. The exact problem here is that the people who we would not allow to edit are the ones who are causing trouble on the other end, with vandalism. I'd imagine there are exceptions, but they are few and probably not worth scaring away legitimate readers. Mad Jack 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: According to wikipedia article on the film, Lohan has been replaced by Jessica Alba. 
J. Van Meter 20:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, RadioKirk, I am aware of the Friedman story, but this source, citing the Hollywood Reporter, does say that Alba is in the film over Lohan. How do we know Friedman wasn't right, if everyone else is reporting the same thing now? Mad Jack 20:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMDB lists Alba, not Lohan:  J. Van Meter 20:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's not bring up the IMDB here. They don't know Alba from Jennifer Garner, and are not a reputable source. Mad Jack 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, we should probably make the proper changes in the article even with the one source I presented right at the beginning of this discussion. It seems reliable to me. Mad Jack 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the Catholic category? Has she actually been described as "Is a Catholic"? I think the Kabbalah stuff might cancel that out. Mad Jack 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[M]ight cancel that out" is supposition; we don't know that. We do know that she was raised Catholic, as stated and sourced. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but my question was, do you have a source that says Lohan is Catholic? Per W:NOR, we can not make the synthesis ourselves and include someone in a "Roman Catholics" category unless the source explicitly says the person is Catholic, not Raised Catholic, etc.Mad Jack 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed where you mentioned categories; that, too, is a supposition and should be removed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lohan out of [[Bill (film)]]

message: I have read Wikipedia daily for over a year. Today I created a user account so that I could comment on the tone of this article.
I live in a small fishing village in Mexico and work as an English teacher. One reason I came to Mexico and stay in Mexico is so that I can avoid the constant assault on my intelligence by the media in regards to the latest news about Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, and their ilk.
In Mexico, I can choose for myself whether or not I want to know about any of these people, and when I do so choose, I choose Wikipedia, if possible, because I want neutral, balanced information and a clear, simple style of writing.
I am protesting the lack of balance in this article. I could point out many things that I think go too far, but for lack of time, here's two off the top of my head.
First of all, I suspect there are some negative comments somewhere from the critics regarding Ms. Lohan's movie performances, but all the quotations in this article sound like they were lifted off the posters outside the boxoffice. If can only say nice things about someone, don't say anything at all. I understand what "balanced" means, and this is not it.
The writing style, too, is offensive. The more I read of this article, the more I felt like I was reading either a Enquirer-type tabloid or a teen fan magazine. For instance, the sentence with the words "Lohan auditioned for (and won) the lead teen role... ." In truth, these are the words that prompted me to create a user account.
I have read the biographies of many film actresses on Wikipedia, and I do not ever remember reading these words. I would be willing to bet that the majority of actresses in lead roles in the history of the genre "auditioned for (and won)" each respective role. An alternative such as "Her next movie, another Disney remake.." conveys the same information without the breathlessness.
To end, I chose to read this article on Lindsay Lohan today because, in addition to Wikipedia, I also read the website Overheard in New York faithfully. (I use some of it for my English classes.) My interest in Ms. Lohan was piqued this week after reading the following on that website:
Production assistant: Lindsay, we need you right away.
Lindsay Lohan: Oh my God! Don't talk to me like I'm some kind of normal person!
--7th Ave & 9th St
Can we work this quote in somewhere?
--Buenolio 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, let me get this straight: your solution to a "lack of balance" is to include an utterly unsubstantiated comment from an utterly unreliable source? Yeah, that'll work... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree that there are problems with tone. As far as describing her career goes, the article does seem biased - see Diane Keaton for a more balanced, neutral examination of a movie career. But what bothers me most is how little there is about negative public perception of Lindsay Lohan. You mentioned the record executive who said that he knew she was talented. What about all the critics who feel that Lindsay is absolutely talentless? They get no mention, but her distinctive "husky voice" does. What about Lindsay's tumultuous relationships with Wilmer Valderama? Where are the details of her feud with Hillary Duff? What was the public perception of her bulimia/probable cocaine use? This article glosses over all of the perception problems in Lohan's life, and had I never heard of her, I would have thought her to be fairly universally admired after reading this article, which is frankly not true. The Disco King 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention Diane Keaton: the massive rewrite of this article starting something like six months ago came after I'd read Céline Dion and, more recently, Diane Keaton—the "how she built herself into a household name" presentation should be familiar. Meantime, what you request in this article does not belong here, at least in detail: critics who find her "talentless" (as you put it) are in the minority—even those who've panned her work generally like her, as in the representative quote (and, reaction to the second album is properly summarized); relationship details with Valderrama and Duff are mostly tabloid pap and almost entirely unreliable, save for the brief mentions that are already there (and, any more detail constitutes unencyclopedic fancruft—this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page); the bulimia/cocaine issue is presented with proper brevity, rebutted, and rebutted in turn; and, frankly, she is mostly admired by people with sufficient thought processes to reject tabloid "reporting". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if I understand you properly, the fact that tabloids spread rumours which were widely believed and which had a major impact on Lohan's life isn't worthy of mention in this article because the rumours weren't true and intelligent people can see through them? The Disco King 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of, but not quite: those which actually had a demonstrable "major impact" would be those she addressed in mainstream press (a quote from her, her mother or her rep in the same tabloid that ran the rumor is no more reliable than the rumor). Those are indeed in the article, with the correct brevity. Anything else is fancruft at best and smear at worst. If it helps, I write news for a living; when rewriting this article and bringing it up for peer review and FAC, I took great pains to present as balanced an article as possible, as briefly as possible. I still believe it succeeds. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check the neutrality of this article 

message: I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Lohan discography as a  merge.  I have performed the merge. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I found this letter interesting, it relates to her filming of Georgia Rule.  As I'm unfamiliar with the article I decided not to make any edits and am just passing this on.  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0728061lohan1.html --Tyro 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leter from Morgan Creek CEO

message: My English is very weak, but could someone add a sentence about Pink's video Stupid Girl where she criticizes Lindsay Lohan lifestyle. Here's some references: , , , http://www.azcentral.com/ent/music/articles/0216pink.html. Thank you. CG 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink's video 

message: OK, so I'm well aware that Lindsay left Calhoun her junior year(CHS' Wiki page even says so), but there's one thing I'm not quite clear on; she did finish high school, didn't she?
If so, where'd she get her diploma from?
MLT2712 07:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it states in the article, she finished at home; I for one have found no source re the issuance of a diploma. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding the "Alma mater." 

message: By way of further explanation for this reversion: while the reverted phrase is technically accurate, I don't find it following the spirit of the term. Generally, a "platinum-selling recording artist" has reached sustained success with at least some measure of "artistry" (as in, lyrics, music and arrangement all self-created) and, in all honesty, I don't see Ms. Lohan there yet. Comments are welcome. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unfortunately on Wikipedia, some editors of articles on actors and musicians feel the need to mention the subject's awards and achievements as early as possible. Extraordinary Machine 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "platinum-selling recording artist" 

message: The opening photo is several years old.
:Image:Lindsay Lohan.png
Any thoughts on this one? Justen 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One, needs extended fair-use rationale (see the images there now); two, she's not currently blond; three, the one there now is maybe 2 years old, tops. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the current picture is older its still more representative of Lohan than that one.--CyberGhostface 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro photo 

message: From his prison cell, Michael Lohan has sent New York Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove (who's been Lohan's voice before) an editorial cartoon and letter on the situation that split him from his family. The cartoon, while remarkable, paints a picture in which he seems to be an innocent pawn in a nefarious game. When coupled with the actual letter, however—in which he "discusses his 'stupid decisions,' his new spirituality, an inspirational book he's written and his intention to help troubled teens through a ministry when he gets out of prison"—the whole thing smacks like an effort to get some publicity for his upcoming life back on the outside. I, for one, don't find this encyclopedically notable; any thoughts? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dad's political cartoon 

message: I have seen enough evidence to know that RadioKirk owns this page.  Just yesterday, I was banned for adding factual information to the encyclopedia, and I even cited my source.  But RadioKirk doesn't care, all he cares about is that the article made Lohan look bad.  I reverted it a few times, and was blocked.  I've got a better idea.  It takes two to edit war, right?  Then RadioKirk should have been blocked too.  I'm sick of how RadioKirk acts like he's the only qualified person here.  RadioKirk, do you actually know Lindsay Lohan?  Even if you did, how can you justify blocking people for adding factual information to the article, including citations?  Stop being so childish over ownership of this page, and let other people add information, provided it is factual and cites its sources. Joeschmoe2003 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, but there's a difference between a source and a reliable source. Yours was not reliable; that is and was the only reason for the reversion, and your restoration with no comment or discussion constitutes vandalism. Further, this "story" originated with one comment by Macy that I saw that did not name anyone, never mind Lohan; as it made its way through tabloid press, her name was added, extra quotes were added, and virtually none of it can be traced back to a reliable source. This is not my article; this is an encyclopedia. Why do you have a problem with that? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, assuming I provide more than one source to back me up, are you gonna call them all "unreliable"?  Cause that article isn't the only one online that reported that incident.  And it's vandalism to revert without leaving a comment?  I'll tell you what vandalism is.  Vandalism is the destruction of property.  Arson is a form of vandalism.  Breaking a window is a form of vandalism.  But typing words?  I guess that brings whole new meaning to the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword"... Joeschmoe2003 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every "source" quotes another "source"; it always traces back to an unreliable tabloid report that embellished and/or made up from whole cloth the quotes and/or to whom they were directed. At the same time, you attempted a two-paragraph entry on an item that would barely qualify for one sentence under WP:N if it was reliable. That you restored it without comment is vandalism because it shows you intend to do harm to the page while refusing to discuss that harm. If you're here to make a WP:POINT, you've picked the wrong fight, because Wikipolicy is against you. If you think all this somehow demonstrates that I "own" this page, that's your second strike. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what happens when I hit my "third strike"? I suppose you're the referee who's gonna pull me out.  And can you prove I "intended" to do harm to the page? I did not intend to do any harm, I simply intended to add factual information.  If this is unfactual, then I don't see how the Sharon Stone incident with her not wearing underwear is allowed to remain on Wikipedia, but this isn't.  I don't get why you're so protective of this page.  What is your connection to Lindsay Lohan?  I'm not the first user who's complained about your tactics of keeping this article the way you want it.  You're abusing your power, and in my country, when people abuse their power, they get impeached.  Who here is in support of placing RadioKirk on trial?  All in favor, say yay; all in disfavor, say nay. Joeschmoe2003 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I'm protective of the encyclopedia, period—and "the Sharon Stone incident with her not wearing underwear" is in no way comparable. Also, it appears I'm transposing WP:V violators; if so, this issue is even flimsier than the Macy business. (Meantime, I admit "second strike" was poorly worded; it should have read "second mistake".) I'll be more than happy to answer to anyone who feels I've acted in any way counter to the goals and ideals of Wikipedia; and, I would guess, you would fare not nearly so well. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face it, RadioKirk owns this page 

message: ....are formatted incorrectly.  The title refers to the title of the article, not the article of the site.  I've fixed a few refs already, but many remain.  Let's get this fixed so this article is eligible to be a featured article and get onto Wikipedia's front page. --Oscarthecat 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... they were correct when this article became featured (and, it's already been on the Main Page [grin])—did someone change the bloody format again??! :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 7 thru 54 

message: Since someone's already tried to add this, a little background: Extra learns that Harry Morton buys something expensive at Cartier and, without naming a source, presents the purchase as an engagement ring for Lohan. UPI quotes a Morton source as saying, "I can confirm that Harry was shopping in Cartier ... but what he purchased I cannot confirm. If it was in fact a gift then that's between him and whomever the gift is for." Nevertheless, the UPI headline reads Lindsey [sic] Lohan's boyfriend shops for ring. Meantime, The Philadelphia Inquirer writes that a rep for Lohan has denied the whole thing. Once again, this should stand as an excellent example of why Wiki editors need to show considerable care when writing within biographies of living persons. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry Morton]] and the ''[[UPI]]'' trip into tabloid journalism