Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 4

Flashing to photographers?
I removed the snippet about Lohan flashing her genitals to some photographers at the premiere of Bobby. I could argue that I'm Lindsay Lohan's #1 fan, so if that really happened, I probably would've heard about it. The site that those pictures came from doesn't seem like a reliable source, anyways. Spartan 234 23:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay lohans no.1 fan, u need to get out more. Mr. mister 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This did occur numerous times, not to mention her 'nipple slips' as well. Although I don't think they should be included, as little kids might come across the page as well.

Gone per WP:BLP and WP:N
Better yet, I'm removing the entire reference. If Ms. Lohan is so absent-minded that she cannot remember undergarments where she knows there will be cameras, she deserves to pay the price&mdash;but not within the confines of an encyclopedia article. Had she gone "commando" at the Kids' Choice Awards, that would be notable per the venue; however, no picture proves conclusively that she wasn't wearing a thong, her long-since-established garment of choice (when she so chooses, evidently). Here, she's merely become yet another in a growing list of celebrities (Goldie Hawn, Paris Hilton, et al.) shot upskirt while departing from a vehicle. Unless notability can be clearly established, we don't punish a living person merely for a poor choice any more than we reward a paparazzo merely for standing in the right place at the right time. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean this?: WARNING: CONTAINS NUDITY --- Silent RAGE! 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Mr. Morton feeling up Ms. Lohan is encyclopedic? :D RadioKirk (u|t|c)  01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This was not covered by any notable sources? I'm skeptical. Everyking 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue, to me, is not so much the coverage (or lack thereof [grin]), but whether becoming a member of the upskirt commando club is notable in and of itself. It may be foolish to go commando where paparazzi lurk, but whether that alone is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia is a question for which my answer&mdash;for Ms. Lohan, Ms. Stone, Ms. Hilton, Ms. Hawn and/or anyone else&mdash;is a resounding "no!" RadioKirk (u|t|c)  01:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I believe that this should be mentioned just the way that it was, a small blrub. This is a significant controversial snippit in Lindsay Lohans life. For a few days this was a much debated issue on the internet that has been proven to be accurate. Fan or not, it happened. There was considerable buzz. People tried to claim it was a fake, photoshopped picture, and someone even tried to make a "real" photo with photoshop to hide the truth. I mean this deserves some small blrub. --Stetsonblade
 * Ah, but the issue is where a small blurb is appropriate. Gawker? Yes. Defamer? Sure. Blogs and/or forums? Absolutely. Encyclopedia? Absolutely not. The "buzz", as you put it, was relegated to a tiny sliver of the netosphere (notice, not a single mainstream news agency is even touching this), and that, absent the clear establishment of notability, is where it should stay. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's a philosophical difference here. I think if it gets any significant degree of attention, we should include it; you think that there is some further bar it has to clear, to not just receive fame but also to have some special encyclopedic quality&mdash;starring in a movie would be unconditionally notable while this picture would not be, even with the exact same level of fame. Is that a correct distinction? Everyking 03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I wouldn't consider this "philosophical" in the least. The "exact same level of fame" is undeniably false at this moment; were it suddenly true&mdash;as in, with the same level of international coverage as a film role with its attendant advertisement and critical commentary&mdash; well, that would establish notability (and this, admittedly, is in contrast to my statement above, but I could not then or now imagine the "exact same level of fame"). Naturally, I would argue that such coverage would irreparably destroy the fine line between journalism and tabloid but, in the meantime, the comparatively (and correctly) tiny coverage coupled with the inability to establish any reason why "and...?" is the wrong response is where the encyclopedic line lies&mdash;and, as I note above, within the article of anyone so captured by someone who just happened to snap a shutter at that exact moment. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  04:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we're getting lost in a tangle of words there. I haven't read the original text but I don't see that anyone has come up with a good reason why Lindsay exposing her vagina in public (accidentally or not) shouldn't get a brief mention.

The two arguments that have been made against the inclusion of a small passage regarding the abovementioned incident (and my take on them) are as follows:

1. "Gone per WP:BLP and WP:N"

Verifiability is probably more relevant than notability in this situation and it seems to be well satisfied by reporting on the issue.

Here are some examples of the coverage this issue has got: ABC America National Ledger Search for it, there are more.

If we are looking at the primary notability criterion I don't see a major problem. The guideline states that a "topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." The only arguable part of this is whether the mentions of information are trivial. However, under the guideline it is evident that this is only relevant when considering the subject for an entire article, not some information within it.

If anyone thinks its inclusion is contrary to something in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Notability, they should identify the issue and we can discuss it.

2. It's not appropriate in an encyclopedia.

In Wikipedia, unencyclopedic refers to something contrary to What Wikipedia is not. Similar to above, if anyone thinks something is contrary to the NOT page, just draw our attention to it and we can discuss it.

If information is relevant, coherent, well sourced and not contrary to any WIkipedia rules or guidelines, there would have to be a very strong argument to keep it out.

I know this isn't the kind of thing you'd see in Britannica, but I'm sure we are all aware of the many differences between the two, including the depth of coverage re contemporary pop culture.

In addition, we obviously we all know that Wikipedia is not censored.

In summary, I'm not dogmatic about the outcome of this... But since there are good sources for this whole thing, there has to be a very good reason for it not to be included. Joaq99 14:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The litmus test: does it satisfy "who cares?" The answer is no. As you note, this would not be in Britannica; nor does it belong here.
 * I was very surprised to see ABC News cover (pun not intended) this; as I've mentioned several times, Ms. Lohan has become yet another in an ever-growing (*cough*Britney*cough*) list of celebs thus captured. No legitimate news source&mdash;and no encyclopedia&mdash;should be rewarding some paparazzo who just happens to be standing in the right place at the right time&mdash;and this comes from someone who works in the news business.
 * "Wikipedia is not censored" does not mean it is intentionally titillating, and this is its only argument for inclusion into the article of any celeb so bitten by the shutterbug. Wikipedia also is "not an indiscriminate collection of information", and this certainly qualifies as indiscriminate. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed your arguments below but it seems that there's nothing more to it than your moral opposition to this information being included. I understand your moral viewpoint and it's perfectly reasonable, however, that isn't a reason to keep information out of Wikipedia.

This information should be included as:

* it was a series of events well reported by the mainstream press about a subject in Wikipedia (E.g.s of Sources: NBC National Ledger  ABC )

* it meets all policies and guidelines

* no one has come up with a good argument why it shouldn't be included

To address your arguments:

i) "this would not be in Britannica; nor does it belong here."

Wikipedia and Britannica certainly have different criteria for determining whether information should be included. For example, I don't think Britannica even has an article about Lindsay Lohan, regardless, it has far less coverage of contemporary pop culture.

To aid in determining whether information belongs in WIkipedia we have a number of policies, guidelines etc already linked to. We don't just use tests such as "Would it belong in Britannica?" or undocumented tests created by individual users (like the "Who cares" test). (Also, the "who cares" test is subjective.)

Although I'm not a proponent of 100% black letter adherence to policy/guidelines on Wikipedia, when information is relevant, coherent, well sourced and not contrary to any WIkipedia rules or guidelines, there would have to be a very strong argument to keep it out. I have not seen anything like a strong argument.

ii) "No legitimate news source—and no encyclopedia—should be rewarding some paparazzo who just happens to be standing in the right place at the right time—and this comes from someone who works in the news business."

Your moral opinions on what news sources and encyclopedias should or should not cover really come into the argument unless you can find a relevant policy/guideline. Again I must point out that Wikipedia is not censored.

What is important is, these events WERE covered by the mainstream media and therefore weresubject to fact checking etc. This also means that meet Verifiability, Biographies of living persons etc.

iii) "an indiscriminate collection of information"

Very obviously doesn't apply. It's not a list of FAQs, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual etc. etc. or anything similar. Rather, it would be a brief writeup of events that have been well reported in the press, very similar in character to information already in the article, e.g. the lawsuit against Lohan's mother.

iv) We don't want anything in the article that is "intentionally titillating"

I don't think anyone has advocated the inclusion of material aimed at titillating (if they have I disagree with them). The article would benefit from a short and well sourced mention of the incidents, not a sensationalised write up with pictures.

I am acutely aware that any mentions of the incidents must comply with WP:BLP.

Soooo... I really haven't seen any arguments presented for keeping this information out of the article so I'm keen to make the edits ASAP. I hope you agree to a mention at this point so we can work together to make this page informative and compliant with the policies/guidelines. Otherwise we may have to get a third party in to resolve this. You seem to be having a similar argument with those on the Britney Spears page so maybe we can kill two birds.

(Look what my life has become... debates about Lindsay and Britney...) Joaq99 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I would appreciate as many third parties as possible. This is not a moral issue; as I've noted at Ms. Spears' talk page, I frankly don't care if the young woman wants to flash her snatch for the whole world to see. This is not even an issue about verifiability. It is a matter of relevance and notability&mdash;a guideline, as you're keen to point out&mdash;which, in Ms. Lohan's case, is considerably weaker than Ms. Spears' in that the necessary effect in a cause-and-effect equation is comparatively nonexistent (a few websites, literally nothing more). This is the "who cares?" test that this data fails, and it fails utterly. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also am utterly opposed to tracking the presence/absence of articles of clothing in biographical articles. Irrelevant, non-notable cruft. Valrith 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to register my opinion here again, this should definitely be included in the article. Notability is clear. Everyking 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That this is a discussion proves it's not "clear". RadioKirk (u|t|c)  06:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion notability is clear. Everyking 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This information is clearly notable, IT'S INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS.
 * I have humored you for too long. Go and read Notability.
 * As it stands, you have removed information from an article without any grounds whatsoever. Joaq99 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am quite familiar with WP:N; it fails utterly. I am quite familiar with WP:BLP; it fails utterly. You "humor" nothing and no one. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED ACCORDING TO Notability


 * I WILL EXPLAIN BIT BY BIT WHY THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINE (for the last time.)


 * i) Primary criterion
 * The guideline states "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."


 * HERE ARE THE MULTIPLE PUBLISHED WORKS INDEPENDENT OF LOHAN:
 * NBC National Ledger  ABC


 * The only question relates to "non-trivial".
 * The guideline states that this refers to "the depth of content contained in the published work ... and how directly it addresses the subject".
 * The guideline states that if information doesn't meet the "non-trivial" test, the recommendation is to "...merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject". So we shouldn't have a separate article on Lohan's series of public exposures, rather, we should incorporate it into the main Lindsay Lohan article.


 * THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE GUIDELINE. YOUR APPROACH IS IN NO WAY SUPPORTED BY THE GUIDELINE.


 * ii) Notability is not subjective
 * "Notability criteria do not equate to "I have heard of it"/"I have never heard of it" or "I think this topic deserves attention"/"I do not think this topic is worthy of attention". These subjective evaluations are irrelevant to the notability of a topic regarding its inclusion in the encyclopedia. "


 * "Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works."


 * SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU OR I THINK SOMETHING IS NOTABLE SUBJECTIVELY. WHAT MATTERS IS IF IT HAS "been included in reliable published works", WHICH IT HAS.


 * THIS SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED UNDER THE NOTABILITY GUIDELINE.


 * (Of course, since you've read the policy you would know that the concept of 'notability' really should be applied to entire articles, not selected content being entered into them.)


 * I'm having trouble assuming good faith when you continue to state the info should not be included in complete contradiction to the guideline, yet you don't even refer to which part of the policy supports your argument and you persist in creating your own notability tests. Joaq99 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the most massive case of hyperbole I've ever seen on Wikipedia, let's examine these one by one, shall we? Meantime, if you're going to make the mistake of questioning my good faith to this article and to this project, file an WP:RFC. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, prior to Spears' incidents, Lohan's were relegated to tabloid stories quoting the occasional poster to an Internet message board (make no mistake, otherwise reliable news sources can and do create cruft that is utterly without merit; I reject like-crafted "stories" in my newsroom every day). Notability: failed.
 * nbc11.com: Mentions Lohan in passing in a tabloid piece that almost accomplished what this piece finally did for Spears' article. If Jane Doe is captured upskirt at a nightclub, it's not notable whatsoever; for a celebrity, you must establish cause-and-effect or it's cruft. Notability: failed.
 * nationalledger.com tries miserably to accomplish what nbc11.com attempted, only to venture completely into unsubstantiated rumor based on a report in Star Magazine, a tabloid that fails reliability standards. Notability: failed.
 * abcnews.go.com also mentions Lohan in passing in the only link I've seen to date that might work&mdash;the impressionability angle using a quote by a demonstrable expert finally establishes cause-and-effect beyond the otherwise non-notable blogosphere&mdash;and only after Spears joined the club. Notability: passed&mdash;if and only if the entry is prepared in the same manner as Spears'.

Seriously, people you might as well give up on this. RadioKirk will never let it be apart of the star's bio. Possibly he is like the first poster on this topic, Lohan's biggest fan or something. However, I still think this information is worthy to be on here. Has anyone else notice the lack of underware on young stars? Is this a stunt? Are they trying to get attention? It has happened so far with Spears, Hilton, and Lohan; and on multiple occasions. We keep getting hit in the face with it on the papers, the news, and the internet. Then again, it is moot. RadioKirk is completely against it and this page is his baby. Stetsonblade 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, but you're still 100% wrong. This is a non-issue; unlike Britney Spears, on whom the press could potentially have an adverse effect (divorce, child custody, etc.), there is no effect in any potential cause-and-effect relationship, and its mention serves only to degrade. This is the issue, it is the only issue, and it is correct. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Can we get a non blurry picture of Lindsay?


 * Only if it's free to use. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay lohan picture
it is not showing up when the page come up on the internet and has not been for months can you please fix the problem.
 * The URL to the image contains the word "ad" - upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/LL_20021213.jpg - as such, an adblocker is probably removing it. You need to add wikipedia to its exclusion list --Angry mob mulls options 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Works fine here, the problem is on your end. --Yamla 03:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Offensive
I think the picture of Lindsey Lohan with her exposed nipple is not appropriate, and should be removed promptly.
 * Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Anyways, what picture are you talking about? Gothnic 08:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The image already is removed and deleted; not because of any offense, but because it was a copyvio. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Current picture seems low quality...
I don't mean to offend whoever uploaded the picture, but it really is low quality. Her face is somewhat obscured by the hat, and it's somewhat blurry and grayish. Anyone agee? Abby724 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Per the new fair use criteria&mdash;with which I do not agree, but, oh well&mdash;it cannot be replaced except with another free image. The alternative is to remove it. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I am too lazy to find another picture, I must agree the image does in fact suck. User:Misterboston|User talk:Misterboston


 * Yeah the new pic sucks. Go back to the one that shows off her tits.


 * I have a request in to LLRocks, Inc.; nothing yet. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.144.197 (talk • contribs)

Friendly Fire
Lindsay Lohan also starred in the short film Friendly Fire by Sean Lennon, (John Lennon's son). I don't know how I'd add that information into the article, so I'm hoping someone else can. :D -chad. 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source for this? <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Fire_%28film_version%29  --Pinay06 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also listed in IMDb Valrith 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia neither can use itself nor IMDb as a reliable source. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Her name
According to her official site she was born Lindsay Dee Lohan and she legally changed her middle name to "Morgan", so that her legal name now is Lindsay Morgan Lohan. This is totally different to "known professionally" as....  Her film credits and album covers show her name as "Lindsay Lohan" and nothing more. The way I've rewritten it is very awkward, and I'd love someone to fix it, but "professionally known as" is incorrect. Thanks Rossrs 09:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rossrs, it was correct originally. On TEENick, she said her middle name is still Dee; apparently, it was never legally changed, nor does the official site say it was legally changed, it says she changed it. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oh ok, I misread it. How did I miss that?  My mistake, sorry.   Yes, it says she changed it.  Even so, when is she professionally known as "Lindsay Morgan Lohan"?  Is she known as such on any film or album credits.  In what context is she "professionally known"? I think if there are no credits in which she professionally assumes that name, it would be more correct to say "also known as", or to spell it out even explicitly maybe we should explain it fully, for example "as an adult Lohan changed her middle name to "Morgan"".  Rossrs 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It happened around the time of The Parent Trap, I believe, and was still widespread enough at the time of the TEENick appearance that someone asked her about it (after the apparent image of her driver's license showed up on the Internet). This may eventually be unnecessary, but I'm not yet sure that time is here. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi RadioKirk. That's not what I mean.  Whatever is on her driver's license isn't what I'm asking about.  It's the "known professionally" bit that I think is wrong.  Is she credited as "Lindsay Morgan Lohan" in Parent Trap, or anywhere else? Rossrs 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I frankly couldn't come up with any other way to phrase that, but it's too widespread to leave out of the lead&mdash;for now, anyway. Any ideas? <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's tricky. Manual of Style (biographies) failed to anticipate Lindsay's quirkiness, so it's no help.  How about:


 * Lindsay Dee Lohan, sometimes known as Lindsay Morgan Lohan, (born July 2, 1986) is an American actress and singer etc .....  OR:


 * Lindsay Dee Lohan, (born July 2, 1986), and sometimes known as Lindsay Morgan Lohan, is an American actress and singer etc


 * Maybe a cite after the second name, as was done with the birth name to avoid confusion. Maybe we could write to Lindsay and explain our dilemna - and ask her to choose one name and stick with it!  Madonna and Cher don't cause this kind of confusion!   ;-)  Rossrs 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dina is so busy she never writes me anymore. :( Anyway, I've just tried something, comments welcome. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally. When they reach the top they often forget the people who helped them get there.  The edits look good.  I find her rationale odd though in choosing a more professional-sounding name and then not using it. I quite like the sound of "Sarah Lindsay Lohan", but I guess she realized this is well and truly covered by the Sarah's Jessica Parker and Michelle Gellar.   Back to the article, yes I think that fixes it quite neatly.   Rossrs 03:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal taken, that was meant to be humorous. :) Anyway, it seemed as if she did "use" it a lot, given its widespread acceptance and her decision to address the change, but she was never officially credited as such in her projects (that I've seen). Glad you like the edits. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I get your sense of humour, which is why I enjoy our infrequent discussions. :-D   Rossrs 12:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As do I. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why exactly does a stage middle name she doesn't even use anymore need to be in the header? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elle234 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I agree that it's confusing to say "professionally known as", when it's blatantly not the case. The title of the article, and every screen credit I've seen leaves out the middlle name. It might be worth a separate article further down the page, because it's interesting as a topic in itself (the idea of a stage middle name), but not in the first line. Imho. 81.131.34.69 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And that's why I've already moved it. The data is particularly widespread, but I agree that, as a leading detail, it's outlived its usefulness. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace
Does anyone know Lindsay's exact birthplace, like the hospital where she was born? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reddie23 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Not that I've ever seen&mdash;plus, it wouldn't be particularly notable here. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply Me
According to this post on the hollywood.com forums, this album is fake. It should be obvious anyway by the lack of copyright and consumer data on the "back cover". Nice job, though... ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

...and No Little Angel
...also, there is no reliable source yet for No Little Angel. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)