Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Good Morning America

Why no mention of her obvious lip synching during her "live" performance on Good Morning America?

Because everybody does it sometimes and it's a non-issue? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If Ms. Lohan was a true singer, she wouldn't lip sync, but she's just a pop star. Not a good one at that!

SHE IS NOT WHAT SHE REALLY IS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.15.86 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a non-issue, and not everybody does it. That's why it stands out I when people do it. They're supposed to be able to sing, and this was a live performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.202 (talk • contribs)

Okay, since an intentionally humorous generality was taken seriously, more people do it than you'll ever know. Still, the utter lack of any notability is only half the issue; her people said she was singing along to a voice track because she had a sore throat; unless you can provide published proof of a lip sync, its addition also violates no original research. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding, aren't you? At one point she's not even singing, her mouth is closed, and yet the lyrics can still be heard. Given that "more people than [I'll] ever know" lip-sync live, why would her publicists feel the need to concoct laughable stories to deny the accusations? Anyway, surely something that you can see with your own eye's doesn't fall under the category of original research? But a horrible thing happened to her,She was arrested for DRUNK DRIVING and have DRUGS in that car. She may be sent to prison or Let go with a "large" fine.

The story was in a ton of tabloids - if I can provide links, will it then be OK to include it? Actually, I remember that you think such sources are not sufficiently reliable to be included (as you so persuasively argued in the upskirt section above). Of course, if we applied that measure to the current information in the article, there might be a comparative dearth of information on this page. Not too many broadsheets in that ol' reference list. Could it be that you're choosing to apply your "notability", and "reliability" arguments to selectively exclude information that you perceive to be negative? Wait - how uncharitable of me. CnsBiol 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and PS. The "intentionally humorous" sarcasm in the previous statement WAS meant to be taken seriously. You see, most people add statements to discussion pages because they actually want to get some point across, not just have a little condescending laugh to themselves.CnsBiol 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not laughing. I've removed more data from this article—positive and negative—than you'll ever add. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be the [Wikipedia: I was here first—I don't have to answer your arguments with more than one word, you noob] rule, I take it? I think your answers tend towards the dismissive, as evidenced by the first one in this string.CnsBiol 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the we've-already-dealt-with-this-non-issue-argument, even by people who assume good faith better than do you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How am I to interpret your original reply in this string in good faith? Your reply was terse, dismissive, and unreferenced. Perhaps I've read the definition of cruft a little closer than you. From WP:CRUFT: "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such nonsense, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." This would pretty adequately sum up the intent of your first reply, no?

Finally, in relation to your last comment, I've scanned through the talk archives, and couldn't find where the lip-syncing issue has been previously dealt with. CnsBiol 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you've completely glossed over "Okay, since an intentionally humorous generality was taken seriously ..." immediately following; nevertheless, my initial reply was correct.

"This would pretty adequately sum up the intent of your first reply, no?" You're correct: no.

As for the archives, it was there last time I looked...

The only lack of WP:AGF within this "conversation" is yours; my intent is and has always been the maintenance of Lindsay Lohan as a Featured article—an article to which all others aspire, creating a proper biography which handles both the positives and negatives of a subject's life succinctly and without original research and non-notable data as demanded by policy (biographies of living persons specifically states that we maintain "a degree of sensitivity"). Your glib ad hominems do nothing to take away from the fact that this episode fails the "does anyone care" test and, therefore, is not notable. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My ad hominems? May I quote: "I've removed more data from this article—positive and negative—than you'll ever add." Nonetheless, I shall make my case for the inclusion of the lip-syncing event in Lohan's bio clear.

Coming from an acting background, Lohan faces the common perception that she does not actually have any singing talent, and that her music career is more of a cynical ploy by an opportunistic manager. Her lip-syncing on GMA was therefore a blow to her credibility as a singer.

I'm going to ignore your continued statements about "data", because WP:CRUFT is not a policy or guideline, and anyway, expressly states that cruft is not a reason for omission, but really refers to non-notability. Is the lip-syncing event notable? You can't argue that the lip-syncing event didn't occur, as it was caught on film. Your argument must therefore surround whether the event was worthy of being noted. It would seem from the notability criteria that several independent sources constitute notability. Here are two: [1] and [2]. Here is the original video [3].

Her PR people have issued denials, which can be included. But not in the usual way, where we say that she "allegedly" lip-synced. Because she did lip-sync.

Any chance of a pointer to the place in the archive where the lip-syncing issue was previously dealt with? CnsBiol 03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where it went.

As I recall, there actually were two reasons this data was excluded: one, unless someone else did the singing on her album (a la Milli Vanilli), the event is not notable, plain and simple (in fact, it epitomizes WP:NOTNEWS, a policy/guideline proposal); two, her publicist said she was singing to a voice track (sore throat, or something similar), so the article cannot say she was lip-syncing as it is not necessarily factual.

Meantime, I continue to have difficulties with the concept that the author of "would her publicists feel the need to concoct laughable stories" and "surely something that you can see with your own [eyes]" (Really? You can conclusively prove lip-syncing vs. singing to a voice track?) would deign to discuss neutrality with me; anything of similar tone added to the article would be nuked on sight by any one of dozens of editors.RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't notable. It's not really up to any of the contributors to wikipedia. From WP:N "The primary notability guideline for inclusion of articles on Wikipedia states that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I offered two. Sure, they're not high-brow publications, but LL isn't a high-brow subject. Your continued claims of WP:NOTNEWS therefore confuse me.

On that subject, please stop pretending that your assertions (e.g., "unless someone else did the singing on her album, a la Milli Vanilli, the event is not notable") are arguments. Please tell me why you think that someone pretending to sing in a studio is notable, but someone pretending to sing on stage is not notable. I outlined precisely why I think that this would be of interest to someone interested in Lohan's musical ability. Your counterpoint was: "the event is not notable, plain and simple", apparently because Milli Vanilli was notable.

Finally "anything of similar tone added to the article would be nuked on sight by any one of dozens of editors." I realise this. That's why I didn't include it in the page. The talk pages are allowed a degree of leeway not permitted in the encyclopedia. I believe that if something is directly observable (e.g., the moon can be seen at night), then a publicist issues a questionable denial (e.g., the moon cannot be seen at night), then it is not WP:POV to only include their statement as an afterthought. If you think that we should include the qualifier "allegedly" in the statement, then it's probably not worth arguing. But we should include the link to the videoclip so that people can judge for themselves. CnsBiol 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not up to me; it's up to policy, policy and guideline.

Please stop perverting legitimate arguments in an attempt to discredit them; you cannot in any way, shape or form equate two people caught faking an album by using studio singers with an artist who may or may not have lip-synced during a live appearance and who clearly sung live in others.

Wikipedia should link to a copyright violation? No, no way, not ever. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. You were making the comparison. I was pointing out that it was specious. Please explain to me why "unless someone else did the singing on her album (a la Milli Vanilli), the event is not notable, plain and simple". I am not equating them. I am merely stating that they are both notable.

2. As I believe I have pointed out to you before, citing thousand-word policies does not make things clearer. What part of WP:BLP is relevant? What part of WP:N is relevant? As for WP:V, I imagine you're arguing that the cited sources are not reliable. I have answered this point earlier, and you haven't responded. Why do you consider the sources quoted (e.g., People magazine) to be unreliable, when they have been implicitly classed as reliable by their inclusion elsewhere on the LL page?

3. Youtube links are not necessarily copyright violations. Youtube has numerous ongoing partnerships that allow copyrighted material to be placed on their site. There is therefore a very strong argument that we can legitimately link to the site (see [[4]]). CnsBiol 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can't read, I'm not going to coddle you. The video is irrelevant to a non-notable issue.

It becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith in the face of the evidence: yet another username contributing virtually nothing to the encyclopedia (if anything at all) before gravitating straight over here to engage in circular, adaptive arguments designed specifically to avoid the facts and any resolution thereof, usually months after the fact. I'm not repeating myself to a moving brick wall. If you legitimately think I'm wrong, as opposed to just coming here to stir manure, go here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. First, I find it amusing/irritating that you would go from protesting ad hominem attacks to launching into them yourself. Second, I'm not asking to be coddled, I'm asking for some precision in your statements. When I respond to your objections about lack of notability with specific points, you neither accept the arguments nor indicate why you don't find them persuasive. I want to know exactly why you think the arguments are incorrect, which will require more specifics than just "not notable". Finally, I don't believe that my arguments have changed throughout this string. From the beginning I've said that since the lip-syching was covered by various sources, it reaches the bar for notability. CnsBiol 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, she does seem to be lip-synching in this performance. I don't see how this information would be relevant, though; Lohan has already performed live a couple of times. Plus, there are artists that lip-synch almost every performance (Hilary Duff, for instance), and you don't see it mentioned into their articles in Wikipedia. 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A notice of this intractable dispute has been placed on the noticeboard here: [5]. CnsBiol 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been the best piece of entertainment I've read in a long time. More fights! *wonders if there was hair pulling involved*

Lindsay's offical website

isin't her website llrocks.com?

Just change her picture man!

Her main pic isn't so cool. It's been there for a while now it should be changed.

You find us one that isn't copyrighted and we might consider it. Ward3001 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see whats wrong with it either. She's actually posing for a photograph. Its not like some blurry concert photo where she's looking away.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lola Cep

Every so often, an editor steps in stating that Lohan's character in CoaTDQ is Lola Stepp—an assertion that, of course, is devoid of a reliable source. So, for purposes of posterity, click on "Lola's Entourage" at the official Disney video page to see that it is indeed Cep. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"BE ADEQUITE" comment actually from Prairie Home Companion

I am not a registered user, so I can't add this to the page... If someone could do it for me, I would appreciate it. I'm just going to write the facts and you guys can word it how you'd like.

The most famous comment that Lindsay Lohan has possibly ever made is the one that ended her open letter after Robert Altman's death: "BE ADEQUITE". Of course, it IS spelled wrong, but many people have said that she's essentially stupid for having said something so stupid. While I can't say that she's not stupid, I can certainly defend on this point.

"Make it Adequate" is a song that was played on the first edition of the "Prairie Home Companion" radio show following Altman's death. The song is listed on the "PHC" website as "Make it Adequate", but is repeatedly referred to by Garrison Keillor as "Be Adequate". The song was written by Richard Dwrosky for Altman (because Altman would often compliment his actors by saying "that was adequate").

I'm assuming Lindsay listened to the show and heard Keillor say "Be Adequite" and assumed that was the title of the song. Seeing as though the song was written specifically for and dedicated to Altman, Lohan was simply saying this as a reference to Altman and Prairie Home Companion.

The reference is right here: http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2006/11/25/ During Segment 2, you hear the song.

I think it's only fair to Lohan that this is added to her article, seeing that the letter she wrote is mentioned. This should be cleared up from here on out.

Thanks ahead of time. 69.180.248.219 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's many, many years older than that. "Be adequate" was something Altman constantly told his actors and, I'm guessing, that includes Lohan; I haven't found a reliable source yet for its origin, but her message appeared intended to return the sentiment. Still, that detail was purged because it is unnecessary and any resolution beyond the "note from the heart" quote is original research—the current version is proper. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From my original post: "The song was written by Richard Dwrosky for Altman (because Altman would often compliment his actors by saying "that was adequate")" So yeah... I'm huge fan of Altman and I was aware of that (Keillor even mentions it on the show that I linked to). I think it DOES matter, because it's the most widely criticized point in the letter. It is assumed by everyone that she was saying "be adequate" to everyone mistakenly (I assume everything thinks she meant to say something more along the lines of "be special", or something like that). I certainly can't be considered a fan of Lohan AT ALL, but I am a fan of fairness and the truth. I think at least a sentence in the article is called for. It's not adding unnecessary information to mention that she meant the final line as a message to Altman. Why does this fact have to be mentioned on the NBC Nightly News to end up on this Wiki page? 69.180.248.219 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can write it in such a way that it does not presume to get inside her head (we know what she meant, but she's never said so, thus it's original research), I would not be adverse to a very brief addition. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

13 March paparazzo incident

Given the rep of the New York Post, I'm not entirely fond of the source for this edit but, strangely enough, it's the only version of this story to include actual research and is easily the most balanced presented to date (the Courier-Journal version attributes the quotes to the New York Daily News, which does not have the story online). I'll likely keep hunting for better sources as time passes, but I'm (barely) inclined to say this'll do for now. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can trust the sources that say she was reckless given the video of the event, don't you think? RadioKirk is a Lohan apologist and thuus violates NPOV. 65.164.51.130 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove NPOV, it is because of you. Let an editor decide. 65.164.51.130 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag is inaccurate, reflecting an impression made by your edits; see your talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You've shown a history of putting a positive bias and removing reliable stories that put Lindsay in a negative light. Others should review because with as much as you edit the page positive bias turns the entire article into a virtual fan site. 65.164.51.130 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is one of the most neutral within Wikipedia, and is a featured article as a result. Now that you've made your latest attempt to somehow discredit me, let's expose you, shall we?

• Bill Foran hoax #1
• Bill Foran hoax #2
• Outright vandalism to Lindsay Lohan
• suspected sockpuppets of Bill4an

There is no longer any doubt of your efforts, and I will be requesting a checkuser to see which other accounts showing up out of nowhere on this talk page are also you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

===Why I'm going to pare this down to the bump I'd like comments on this, because I want to be sure that people with an agenda who pop up here to claim I have one don't have a leg, bruised knee or otherwise, to stand on.

The cited source (Access Hollywood, using a script apparently copyright NBC) includes a video that contradicts the story in several key areas, both substantial and sequential. The script suggests Lohan vehicle entry, drive-off, chase, police ticketing photogs, then the bump (I won't even mention the worst flop I've seen since Vlade Divac retired, because that's original research [grin]) after she somehow got back into the original vehicle. The video shows Lohan vehicle entry, inability to move due to crowd, attempt to move, photog on hood (utterly inconclusive as to whether he was already standing there or quickly moved to that position), vehicle exit, Lohan in back seat of "bodyguard[']s black SUV", EMTs helping photog (who, unmoving, somehow lies on his "bruised knee" without aggravation), then chase (in which the drivers of all three vehicles run red lights after stopping to make sure there's no cross traffic and otherwise not in a "reckless" fashion).

Among the questions: how can Lohan drive the SUV recklessly when the only evidence shows her in the back seat? Who said "recklessly" in the first place? Police? Witnesses? Lohan apologists (like me [sarcastic grin])? Haters? Anyone? (The statement goes unattributed.) How does Access Hollywood get a story from NBC when neither MSNBC nor WNBC carried the story in its online editions? Not even the never-does-its-own-investigation World Entertainment News Network mentions the "allegedly reckless" angle.

Once again, to ensure neutrality, I practically beg for comment. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaced in "The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond"

Lindsay has been replaced in "The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond" by Bryce Dallas Howard: [6]. I keep trying to remove the credit from Lindsay's page but (hehe) someone keeps replacing it. Lindsay is no longer in the film and the credit needs to be removed. Caladonia

That's because, until now, no one has included a reliable source for removal of the data, as I've noted in the edit summary each time I've restored the data. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholism

I'd like to bring up the topic of Lindsay's alcoholism. Her mom insists Lindsay is not an alcoholic (snicker), but what (hehe) does everyone else here think? I mean, pretty much anybody who goes to rehab is an alcoholic and/or drug addict. -EJ220 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page on wikipedia, and it is to be used to discuss changes to the article, not the subject of the article itself. Thanks. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is used for discuss the changes in order to improve this articles. Daniel 5127 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

returned

I have basically returned the article to it's featured version. Please discuss on this talk page any changes you want to make from here - and provide unquestionably reliable secondary sources for such changes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Information

I do not think this information is notable especially for a encyclopedia!!

Lohan was voted #10 on the list of "100 Sexiest Women" by readers of FHM.[47] Maxim placed her at #3 on its 2006 Hot 100 list.[48]

In 2007, Lohan placed at #1 on the Maxim "Hot 100".[49] The list can be seen here.

the disturbing removal of the "health issues" section

Th "health issues" part of the article was removed on May 17 I believe. It should be obvious to anyone (even rabid fans) of Lindsay that the primary reason she is famous these days is not her career, but her lifestyle, which has resulted in her highly-publicised rehab treatment and numerous previous hospital visits. Lindsay's movie and music careers are in the doldrums - the vast majority of the press coverage she receives do not focus on her career.

Removal of the aforementioned material (copied below) amounts to censorship. It's clear the party responsible for taking it down has an agenda - wishing to paint a glowing portrait of Lindsay by attempting to sweep a multitude of issues under the carpet. It should be reinstated.

Lohan on the cover of Vanity Fair, in which she admitted some drug use (she later said her words were "misused") Lohan exhibited dramatic weight loss during 2005, which she attributed to "old-school working out."[66] Later, Lohan admitted that she "nearly died"[67] and said, "I'm working out with a trainer and eating healthily. I want my boobs back."[68] Lohan spent about two days at a Miami, Florida, hospital after suffering a serious asthma attack in January 2006.[69] That same week, Vanity Fair released an interview in which Lohan admitted using drugs "a little" (she denied ever using cocaine, calling it a "sore subject"). The article said she had recovered from "bulimic episodes", and that her 2005 hospitalization was for "a swollen liver and kidney infection".[70] Lohan later said she was "appalled" that her words were "misused and misconstrued" for the article; the magazine replied, "Every word [was recorded] on tape. Vanity Fair stands by the story."[71] In July 2006, Lohan was taken to a hospital while shooting Georgia Rule, complaining that she was "overheated and dehydrated"; Morgan Creek Productions CEO James G. Robinson had a letter delivered to Lohan in which he accused her of "all night heavy partying" and making up "bogus excuses", and threatened to take action to recover any "monetary damages".[72] Her mother later appeared on Access Hollywood to refute the accusation, saying her asthmatic daughter was working in 105-degree heat and calling Robinson's letter "way out of line."[73] People wrote in December 2006 that Lohan had been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in Los Angeles for a year, but she told the magazine that she hadn't gone public because "it's no one's business. That's why it's anonymous!" She said she had been going to clubs between film projects to get partying "out of my system, [but] I was going out too much and I knew that, and I have more to live for than that."[74] The following month, Lohan entered rehab at an undisclosed location "to take care of my personal health," asking that the media "please respect my privacy at this time."[75]She became an outpatient a short time later.[76] Lohan's representative told People that the actress had undergone an appendectomy on January 4, 2007.[77] She was videotaped the following day, trying to avoid photographers after she walked out of the hospital.[78]

202.122.132.4 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Hastings

Might be interesting to add a sentence about this: [7] [8]. Peter S. 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No reliable sourcing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

Ok There Is A HUGE mistake in this article. It Says "Lindsay Dee Lohan[1] (born July 2, 1986 to April,11 2007}" She did not die on April, 11 2007. This mistake should be corrected.

Thank You

Maybe they meant to say 2008?

Robot Chicken

I dont think that should be on it because it is just a parody and not something that she actually worked on.

Lindsay was ARRESTED AND IN REHAB

Why is that not on the article? Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie ALL have info on their personal problems and so should Lohan. POV

The accident/arrest is in there (not rehab, yet), crammed inconspicuously into the "Media spotlight" section as a portion of one paragraph. Everyking 11:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is her second time in rehab and it took seconds before Spears time in rehab was posted. Nothing on Lindsay in rehab. Too bad she was there back in January (to Feb) and is there now for over 3 days.

Added the section entitled Arrest and Rehab back in. It appears to be well-cited, so I don't see the issue. Ccrashh 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, well now it's in there twice. Literally, sentences are repeated. Where do you want the info in the article? –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...my mistake. From Strothra's comments, I thought he had deleted the section. Didn't realize he moved it. I think it should go under Arrest, since it is a little more serious than simple a "Media Spotlight" issue. Ccrashh 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. =) –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize for that, should have said "moved." I took out the rehab portion though because it didn't provide any citations for that. Soapfan's edit was clearly violating WP:BLP as it did not provide citations even though it was providing a direct quote. Those things need proper citations, otherwise they are to be immediately removed without discussion per policy. Also, it shouldn't have it's own section, such a move provides the incident with undue weight. The importance of the material must be weighed against how it makes her notable. Lohan is clearly far more notable due to her film and music roles in pop culture than her personal life. Without her film and acting roles, her personal life would not give her any special notability that would set her apart from the general public. --Strothra 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if britney Spears gets her own "personal problems" section, so should Lohan. It looks like you are deliberately trying to make her look better because only her career is highlighted. lately, her films have been duds at the box office and she goes clubbing more than she does filming a movie. Rehab is VERY important about Lindsay since this is her SECOND time at the tender age of 20. Soapfan06

It is not up to fans to decide whether or not something like rehab should be included. The fact is, Lohan has been more known for her party life more than her career as an actress. People have stopped seeing her films and that should let you know what is important to add and what is not.

The poster above has a point. If anyone other celebrity's page has a separate section, why not this one? If Paris Hilton can have a section entitled "Legal Problems" why not Lindsay Lohan? Just curious as to the rationale behind similar events with differing results in Wikipedia. Ccrashh 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't compare one article to another. Just because one article has the section, does not mean that it should or that all others regarding notable individuals should. Again, Wiki has policies regarding undue weight and the content of the article must be geared toward why she is notable - ie her contributions. --Strothra 02:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article appears totally irrelevant if it doesn't at least mention that she's currently in rehab. 66.237.109.194 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense and is clearly an exaggeration. --Strothra 03:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Strothra, what you wrote regarding "...ie her contributions". So you are insinuating that Lohan hasn't contributed as much to popular culture as Paris Hilton? That is a sad barometer to decide what should and shouldn't be in an article, and how that article should be structured. So far, though you keep referencing Wiki policy, I have yet to see what particular policy to which you are referring. Care to point out which one has you so vehemently opposed to a separated "Legal Problems" section for Lohan? I am really curious. Ccrashh 11:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is contrary to everything I have said. Lohan's article should be seen as separate from other articles on other pop stars. Just because something is included in another article does not mean that it should be included in that article or in all articles. You are the one stating that something bad about Lohan should be included in this article simply because something bad is included in articles abt other pop stars. However, what I am stating is that articles in Wiki are included due to their subject's notability. Thus, articles focus about why they are notable. This is not just the letter of many policies, but also the spirit. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Policies such as WP:BLP have discussions of undue weight - meaning that while she may be in the media for her personal life, her notability resulting from her personal life should be weighed against the primary reasons for her being notable in the first place - ie her public career. I am arguing that giving an entire section to her personal legal problems is giving undue weight to the issue. It is, however, a part of the media spotlight on her and should be included, but within the media spotlight section. Since you are new to wiki, you may wish to review the following policies and guidelines: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:CITE. All of these are relevant to this issue. --Strothra 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Read through WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:CITE, since there are numerous sources, most of the policies you listed have been met. The only ones that might provide something relevant to our discussion are WP:NN and WP:BIO. Neither of these state that news about a "notable" person should not be added to the article if it isn't for what they are considered "notable". News is news. Now, if you don't think it merits its own section, so be it. However, constant removal of references (which have sources) about rehab etc. seems to not fall under any of the policies and guidelines you listed. Ccrashh 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has entered an appropriate acknowledgment of the event and source. --Strothra 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)