Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 10

Motorcycle Accident
It should include somewhere in Personal Life that Lindsay was hit by a motorcycle. --71.225.111.4 (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The few sources that exist are not very reliable, and they are even contradictory as to whether this incident even happened. Siawase (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

how bout the gay remarks
and her apparent outing and lesbian relationship?MY♥IN chile 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about reading the rest of this page. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * whooopsMY♥IN chile 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bratton remark
The article will hardly stand or fall on its inclusion. But it is no more gossipy than the rest of the paragraph. Either delete it all, let it stand, or provide a different justification. Ribonucleic (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it add anything more than what we already have? IMO, no even if we include Lohan's reply. As a result it should be purged on those grounds. Tabercil (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And Ribonucleic, please read the lengthy and heated RfC above. A difficult consensus was finally achieved, and you should not tinker with it according to your whims without getting a change in consensus. So please feel free to discuss here, but do not continue to revert unless there is a change in consensus here. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite lengthy indeed. :-) In the absence of the commitment necessary to review it all, I must in good conscience accede to the deletion. I assume it explains why a British newspaper saying it's a lesbian relationship is acceptable but the Los Angeles police chief saying the same thing is not? Ribonucleic (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I would to to point out that just because we reached a decision as to what to include, what we added is not now the exclusive writing on the topic and nothing else may be added. If anything was neatly added to the text in a way that flowed nicely, I think we should be considering that on its own merits, not kneejerking reverting and going "EH-UH, RfC has spoken!". Really, WP:BOLD is a Wikipedia policy too, you know. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think that the police chief of the nation's largest city "outing" a very well-known celebrity, followed by her public STFU, is so notable as to overwhelmingly trump BLP - not to mention Ward's long and hard-fought struggles to keep any mention of lesbianism out of this article. But maybe that's just me. Ribonucleic (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just try to keep the daily controversy out of the article. It's not a place to chronicle every little spat ... it's a place to chronicle things that are significant about a person, or can be said to have a significant effect on a person. I don't think that this qualifies on either score. That's why I used "recentism" as my explanation. Five years from now, Bratton's comments will probably have no significance at all. If Lohan takes off on a campaign to have him fired, or Bratton attempts something spirited based on perceived lesbianism of various celebrities, it will be time to revisit. Right now, it's just the TMZ article of the week. Kww (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this, but "it's just the TMZ article of the week" is a gross misrepresentation of the available sources. AP, Reuters, The Times, BBC among many others have reported on this. Also worth noting is that WP:RECENTISM is not a policy and it's ambiguous on how to handle the issue, and, for example, includes advice to "Just wait and see. Editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and should not pretend to. It is perfectly fine to write about ongoing events with an eye towards benefiting future readers, but without attempting to prejudge what will be regarded as historically important ten (or 100) years from now." Siawase (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I didn't think my one sentence addition unbalanced even its own paragraph - let alone the article as a whole. And the "will this matter in 5 years?" criterion has never made sense to me. Whoever is reading this article in 5 years will be perfectly free to delete the Bratton mention themselves if they find it superfluous. At the moment, the Ronson relationship is Lohan's chief claim to notability. As such, the Bratton comment strikes me as having a strong claim for inclusion. Ribonucleic (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, my main concern is not that it's recent, or that it's only of interest to tmz-level sources (it's obviously not) but my strongest concern against inclusion is basically what Tabercil said, it does not convey anything new about Lindsay Lohan. In addition, even though the sources reporting what Bratton said are highly reliable, I don't see any reason to assume that Bratton himself has any particular expertise on Lohan. But the incident might in and of itself be notable enough to include it. Basically, I'm on the fence. Siawase (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. WP:NOT applies at the very least. If we still remember this next month, it will be more apparent as to whether it is important. Kww (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above concerns, I think WP:WEIGHT has some bearing here. I think there is quite enough about Ronson in the article as it is (a point that was bitterly debated above, so it is an important aspect of the consensus that was achieved). Lengthening the information just because some know-nothing police chief made a comment that many find laughable is neither necessary nor appropriate. And if we open the can of worms about what should be included in the Ronson section despite the difficult consensus, we are back to square one and anything goes at that point, including adding or subtracting anything. Short of Lohan or Ronson themselves saying something relevant to the issue, things should stay as they are. Ward3001 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Siawese's "says nothing new about Lohan" is the best argument I've seen against inclusion. But I'm not entirely sure I agree with their assessment. That the chief of the LAPD can publicly joke about it strikes me as speaking volumes about the public perception of Lohan as - let's be candid - an attention whore. But erring on the side of reticence sits more comfortably with me now than it did at the time of the deletion.Ribonucleic (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "anything goes at that point, including adding or subtracting anything." That is absolutely not true. The consensus of the RfC above was what to include, not exclude. To add the comments of Bratton in no way challenges the agreed inclusion of the text. I have no real opinion on including Bratton's remarks, which I find bloody funny (and as a reader would love to see in the article) but kinda irrelevant (and as an editor would be averse to adding), but to claim advocating for its inclusion somehow once again brings up the question of whether the agreed paragraph should there at all is ludicrous. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it was true that "The consensus of the RfC above was what to include, not exclude" (which it is not true; there was plenty of discussion about what to exclude) that still puts us back to square one. For example, if I decide to include a statement (let's say hypothetically made by another police chief, or a newspaper columnist) that said, "All this rubbish about Lohan being gay is ridiculously overblown exaggeration ..." (or something along those lines) would that be OK? My answer to that is no, or to use the word above, "ludicrous". Just as my answer to "include" the comment from Bratton is no. Tampering with the statement agreed in consensus is a double-edged sword that can cut both ways. My strong suggestion for both sides of the RfC above, again, is to leave things as they are unless Lohan or Ronson have additional comments. The consensus was too difficult to achieve. Ward3001 (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am completely persuaded by this argument. While I still believe inclusion of the Bratton comment would be germane, I admit it's not very encyclopedic. So what little value it might add to the article would be insufficient return for having risked a flare-up of editorial hostilities. So... uh, carry on then. Ribonucleic (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to include that, Ward, then you should. And if someone disagrees with that then they would remove it and we would discuss it on the talkpage. WP:BRD is an entirely normal and valid way of editing. Frankly, the consensus wasn't difficult to achieve, it was just carefully worded, which took time. There were no trips to ANI, edit wars, admin intervention, sock puppets, meat puppeting, forum shopping, page protection and/or blocks, just a vast amount of writing. Anyone with experience of difficult consensus making on Wikipedia would have thought this relatively amicable collaboration a total walk in the park. Stop making it out to the most tense, difficult battle since Unmovable Rock V. Unstoppable Force. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree on both the inclusion of either the Bratton remark or my hypothetical remark above. Either one could produce needless edit conflicts and add almost nothing to the article. I also disagree that the consensus was not difficult to achieve. (Additional personal comments here.) Ward3001 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the Vanity Fair article as a source?
Vanity Fair's article from 2006 contained some claims that were disputed by Lohan, regarding drug use and/or bulimia, but Vanity Fair stood by the article and there was never a lawsuit. It's mentioned at Vanity Fair (magazine). Obviously if the specific disputed contents were included here it'd need to be mentioned that Lohan disputed it, but can the rest of the article be used as a source without special considerations? Vanity Fair is generally considered a highly reliable source and the rest of the article was not disputed. Siawase (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ and for reference this was the response I got there:
 * I would say that Vanity Fair can be considered a basically reliable source for the popular culture topics that it normally deals with. It is a widely distributed monthly magazine, owned by a major magazine publisher. Presumably they have access to lawyers to vet any article which might place them at risk of a libel lawsuit. If a particular statement in Vanity Fair has been disputed (even if the person in question has not actually sued over it), that should be mentioned. But if the rest of the article has not been disputed, it should be fine to use as a source. That said, we still need to make sure we are not placing undue importance on gossip about living people even if it is mentioned in a source such as Vanity Fair. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So I have began sifting through the Vanity Fair article. Siawase (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)