Talk:Lindsay Lohan

Dina Lohan a former Rockette?

Just wondering why this article describes Lindsay as the eldest daughter of "a former Rockette" whereas it has been well established that that particular claim was false. The page on Dina Lohan recognises that in the "controversy" section (cited source: [1])- why is it still reported as fact here? Omgplz (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

llrocks.com vs. lindsaylohanmusic.com

I've noted this controversy before, and saw some reverts today.

The registration for llrocks.com is

c/o Dinah Lohan PMB 179

223 Wall Street

Huntington, New York 11743-2060

United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)

Domain Name: LLROCKS.COM

Created on: 08-Apr-98

Expires on: 07-Apr-10

Last Updated on: 01-Apr-08

Administrative Contact:

Sullivan, Donald dsullivan@zoeo.com

PLI Software

5848 RIDGE RD

CLEVELAND, Ohio 44129-3166

United States

xxx-xxx-xxxx Fax -- xxx-xxx-xxxx

Technical Contact:

Sullivan, Donald dsullivan@zoeo.com

PLI Software

5848 RIDGE RD

CLEVELAND, Ohio 44129-3166

United States

xxx-xxx-xxxx Fax -- xxx-xxx-xxxx

www.lindsaylohanmusic.com is

Registrant:

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

1755 Broadway:

New Media

New York, NY 10019

US

newmedia@umusic.com

001-212-3730600 Fax: 001-212-3312474

Domain Name: LINDSAYLOHANMUSIC.COM

Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc.

Administrative Contact:

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

UNIVERSAL MOTOWN RECORDS GROUP

1755 Broadway

New Media

New York, NY 10019

US

newmedia@umusic.com

001-212-3730600 Fax: 000-000-0000000

So, all told, it's pretty clear to me that lindsaylohanmusic.com is an official corporate site owned by her record company, and it should be listed.

However, it isn't certain to me that llrocks.com is "just a fan site". It's registered to Dinah Lohan, and, last I heard, Dinah still acted as Lohan's manager.

Kww (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New movie and Leggings line

Can someone please add the following to the article

New movie titled "Labor Pains" [2]

No. Filming has not begun. See WP:CRYSTAL. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New Leggings line [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.71 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No. They're not being sold yet, and on the notability scale, it's quite low. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mink coat case

I added this Manhattan court case: A New York City college student, Maria Markova, 22, sued Lindsay Lohan, at the Manhattan's state Supreme Court on May 19, 2008 of stealing her $ 12,000 golden sheared mink coat while in the nightclub 1 Oak on January, 26.ap.google.com, Lawsuit accuses Lindsay Lohan of stealing mink coat --Florentino floro (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed this for the time being. Read WP:RECENT. There's no reason this can't wait a couple of weeks to see if it develops into something significant or is little more than tabloid gossip. Ward3001 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lesbianism/Samantha Ronson

Photos have recently been released that show Lindsay embracing/kissing/holding hands with DJ Samantha Ronson. This has only seemed to fuel the lesbian rumors. Can anyone shed any light? There was once some discussion regarding her sexual orientation on the talk page here--where did it go? 74.73.105.19 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

why was this undone? Is this not a valid point of discussion? Is someone censoring this page? If this isn't the place for discussion as to what should or should not be included here, what is? 74.73.105.19 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357802,00.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/05242008/news/nationalnews/lohans_ladies_night_112294.htm 74.73.105.19 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the discussion can stay. Don't put into the Lindsay Lohan article unless it moves beyond the rumor status. Ward3001 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't quite see how discussing lesbianism is defamatory. It's quite backward to insinuate that "accusing" someone of being a lesbian is defamatory, considering this would never be the case if she were lesbian and someone were to claim she were straight. 74.73.105.19 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing lesbianism in general is not defamatory. Insinuating something about someone that could be controversial without solid sources can be libelous, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia when it references a living person. Rumors can be discussed on the talk page as long as they are identified in the mainstream media. Putting something that is a rumor in an article generally is not acceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Issues such as this one can wait a while to see where they go before adding to an article. This whole thing with Lohan could be history in a few days. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are articles in the Times of India, and the Boston Herald, confirming that Lohan wants to marry Ronson

"Lohan has not only told friends she wants to have a partnership ceremony with Ronson at Dolly Parton’s theme park, Dollywood, in July, but that she’s already starting to call her herself Lindsay Ronson. ", http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Entertainment/International_Buzz/Lindsay_wants_to_marry_lesbian_lover/articleshow/3080115.cms

http://news.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2008_05_28_LiLo_heading_to_chapel_with_lady_love_/srvc=home&position=also

No mention of this on the page at all...

Adivkumar (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Still rumour only at this point. We're in no rush to add information about this to the article... we can wait for more concrete information to come forth. Tabercil (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I must state that I agree with the thoughts to add this information to this article as it currently is, whether we have "more concrete evidence" or not. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that rumors coming from very valid sources should not be added to Wikipedia articles. This information is coming from very valid sources. The Tom Cruise article tackles gay rumors about him, coming from valid sources, and his being gay is a lot less likely being true than Lohan being in a lesbian relationship with Ronson, where there are even pictures of her acting more than "like friends" with Ronson...depending on your definition of what women who are friends do. I am a little (just a little, considering that I know how Wikipedia can be) surprised that this information is not in this article. I mean, what harm are we causing by relaying information that most people already know about and are already talking about -- that these are just rumors, rumors where Lohan gushes about her romance with Ronson, rumors that happen to be coming from very valid sources?

If I were editing this article, I would have already added this information to it. And if it were reverted, I would have just gotten a fresh set of eyes and opinions from editors unrelated to editing this article about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding it as long as it is cited with a very reliable source ("very" because the issue is breeding ground for overblown rumors) and not the tabloid-ish sources that have been used so far; and if it is done fairly without exaggeration and in proportion to the likelihood that the rumor is true (i.e., about one sentence). So far everyone who has added it has made comments about Lohan and Ronson as a "couple", or their "affair", or their discussion of "marriage", or other such rubbish from tabloid trash. If someone without an agenda to make Lohan look worse or better than she actually is and who values fact over sensationalism wants to add it, give it a try. But if the usual junk that has been added up to this point is placed in the article I will immediately remove it. And I don't say that out of my respect for Lohan, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or outlet for the rumor mill. Ward3001 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely understand your points. Very reasonable, as well as very valid. I may try to add it in a less sensationalized way some time from now if no one else does. If you do not like the way I add it, you could copyedit it instead of reverting it. But if you flat-out revert it, I would be more than willing to work out revisions here on the talk page with you on how to add it. For now, however, I have other matters to attend to. Thanks for your honest and fair response. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you have a problem with using any of the sources listed in this section? Some of these sources are what I was referring to as "very valid", no matter whether or not they are delivered in a tabloid-ish way. And I could surely relay this information to where it is not overblown sensationalism. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer something along the lines of the New York Times or The Washington Post, although I can't argue on the basis of Wikipedia policy that another reliable source is not acceptable. Here's the problem with the article from The Boston Herald: There's almost no substance, and there is the phrase "there are reports ..." with no source for the reports. That's tabloid trash. The Times of India is even worse: "has reportedly told ...", "according to British tabloids ...". The one element that might have a bit of truth (the quote from Lohan's father) was later essentially refuted by her father as misinterpreted and taken out of context. There are two reasons good information can't be found in better sources: There is very little information; about the only thing we have is that they kissed; lots of women, famous women, have kissed with only a momentary blip in news coverage. And the mainstream media isn't interested in the tabloid junk. Ward3001 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I get what you mean. And I have a feel about how you want this information presented. If I cannot find different reliable sources than the ones in this section, I can still present this information in a decent way. It will most definitely point out things such as Lohan's father stating that his words were misinterpreted and taken out of context. For the most part, the way I present it will be balanaced. If not balanced, it will lean more towards the end of indicating to readers that not too much trust should go into Lohan actually being in a lesbian relationship with Ronson. I'm not sure when I'll add this information, but, yeah, I have a grasp on what you are aiming for in its presentation. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that she has confirmed it in an interview with MTV, it is disrespectful to not acknowledge her relationship with Samantha Ronson. Clearly, it's important enough for her to discuss publicly, and to supress this information diminishes the importance of Ms. Ronson in her life. http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/07072008/428572/lindsay_lohan_admits_lesbian_love

It is not disrespectful to wait and see if it is covered in the mainstream media. One more time for everyone who has not been paying attention: Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it certainly isn't a tabloid. We can wait for solid sources. By the way, I find more than a little suspicious that the article mentions "MTV gossip", that the quote attributed to Lohan does not name Ronson specifically, and that the only quote to mention Ronson was from "a pal" quoted in the tabloid the Daily Mirror. If any of this rumor-filled speculation has a shred of truth, it will be all over the mainstream media very quickly. And so far, I haven't seen anything. Ward3001 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed with a realible source: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23986368-7484,00.html, anyone wants to add it in? --Johndoe789 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. All that source does is to repeat the tabloid gossip from the Daily Mirror. "Recent reports claim ..." and "A source said ..." adds nothing verifiable. Folks, let's use a little common sense. If this tabloid trash happens to turn out to be true, it will show up as confirmed in the New York Times or the Washington Post. One more time: Wikipedia is an encylclopedia, not a newspaper. We can wait for the mainstream sources. Ward3001 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jodie Foster article cites the daily mail, daily telegraph, aol, oneindia(?) and even afterellen(!) on very similar subject matter, but the Lohan article is held to a higher standard? Siawase (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an imperfect work in progress. Finding flaws in one article does not justify keeping those flaws in a different article. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ward3001 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but this article is using these same kinds of sources for the personal life section. The NY Times is used exactly once as a source here, and that is on a movie. The washington post is not used at all (and really, what would you expect them to say on the topic of lindsay's relationships?) Anyway, see below for a more constructive suggestion.Siawase (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001, I find your insistence on "mainstream sources" to be overly militant, and smacks of a need to have everything vetted by the corporate media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Militant? I think you don't know the meaning of the word. It's not MY insistence. It is Wikipedia policy. Read WP:BLP. Again, read WP:BLP, and please don't make accusations about me before reading it in its entirety. And one more time: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Ward3001 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream?! You've GOT to let this go. Surely AP is 'mainstream' enough for you?!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377905,00.html

A simple Googling would have given you an AP article about this. Surely you're not that thick? Then again, your profile reeks of you being a total wacko nutjob. 69.182.30.130 (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil if you wish to be taken seriously on Wikipedia. As for your source, the fifth word in the article is "rumored." Plus, per WP:BLP, the article cannot readily be trusted as reliable as it uses weasel phrases to make its assertion (i.e., "a source told the Daily Mirror"). Please, as Ward3001 already recommended, read WP:BLP; it is a very important policy. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a something on Lindsay's friendship with Samantha instead? This is widely publicized enough that I think some mention of Samantha should be included here, per WP:UNDUE. Just a short sentence sourced from people magazine and some other of the more reliable sources of the same kind already used in this article. Siawase (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

At one point I believe there was a statement that used a word similar to friendship. And if it is done reasonably and in proportion to reality, I don't have a problem with it. What has happened though is that editors who zealously wish to fan the rumor flames and ignore WP:BLP and WP:V incessantly begin to add statements about Lohan and Ronson as a "couple", or their "affair", or their discussion of "marriage", or other tabloid trash. If Ronson is mentioned among other "friends" and it's left at that, it will stay. But the rumor-mongers can't leave it at that. Ward3001 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think wikipedia has a general policy of excluding info because it might attract rumor-mongers, though I can certainly see why it'd be a concern here. But I'm not sure either what exactly to include or where. I guess I'll look at the history and souces and think it over.Siawase (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it can be mentioned a lesbian relationship is suspected. Eleanor Roosevelt is now presumed to have been bisexual though only two biographers claim to have "proof" of this. Even with a whole book of letter published, only a handful {if that} can be interpreted as lesbian. Yet and still, there is a whole paragraph dedicated to speculation on Mrs. Roosevelt's sexual orientation. 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.38.135 (talk)

Wikipedia policy with regards to living people is much stricter than when it comes to historical figures, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Also, the entire relationship section of this article was deleted recently, and no one seems particularly interested in seeing it restored, so. Siawase (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this Article so Long?

Really...especially the personal life section, and do we need to subsections with lengthy details on individual arrests? Anarchonihilist (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

She, like Britney Spears, and other young celebs, generate a lot of media coverage so the article seems to be a magnet for every detail and citing. It should be cleaned up but it's an overhaul process followed by housekeeping. Banjeboi 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blood Alcohol

Under "July 24, 2007 arrest"

"...her blood alcohol level was tested at between 0.12 and 0.13 percent - above the California legal limit of 0.08 percent."

I realize this is the wording from the source, but it's mathematically wrong. 0.12 should read as "12%", not "0.12%". The difference is two orders of magnitude, or 100x. If you really had a BAC of 0.12 %, you likely drank a teaspoon of beer.

The line should read as follows, "...her blood alcohol level was tested at between 0.12 and 0.13 (12 to 13%) - above the California legal limit of 0.08 (8%)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidsimmons (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. The legal limit is 0.08% (that is, eight-hundredths of one percent). Read Blood alcohol content. Someone with a BAC of 12% would probably be dead. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001's right. A human body contains about 5 liters of blood. 12% of 5 liters is .6 liters of alcohol. Beer is about 5% alcohol, so to drink .6 liters of alcohol would require you to drink 12 liters of beer, roughly 6 six-packs. That ignores the fact that your body would have to somehow magically excrete the water in the beer while retaining all the alcohol.
Kww (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Try looking to a source such as webmd (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/alcohol-abuse/blood-alcohol); I bet they know a thing or two more than the sources claimed at the bottom of wikipedia's page on the same topic. Are there percent signs in the notation on webmd's site? No, not one. So why the discrepancy? Because super-smart American culture has trained folks to say "percent" when talking about BAC, even though it's [usually] inaccurate. If you don't trust webmd to know a bit about BAC, go ask a doctor or chemist or somebody, I have.

Also, I'll address your math. You did your calculation with beer. Personally, I know several folks who have successfully drunk a lot more beer than that in one sitting. That notwithstanding, what about folks who drink stronger (100 or 150 proof ) alcoholic beverages? You're saying they can't drink more than a liter or two before croaking. Again, there is a significant population who have done that on several occasions and lived to tell about it. Also, using your numbers: 5L of blood in a human -> 0.02% is 0.0338140227 fluid ounces BUT a 20oz beer with 5% alcohol has one whole fluid ounce (1oz), nearly 30 times the amount that would get you to 0.02%. I know your body filters some of the alcohol out, but not that good. Check your math again.Reidsimmons (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're digging yourself in deeper, Reidsimmons. WebMD has no percent signs because they use widely accepted standards that omit the percent sign. This is simple biology. A human body cannot tolerate 12% alcohol. That is medically impossible. And Kww didn't say you can't drink more than one or two liters (i.e., physically impossible to drink that much). He said someone would have to drink more than 12 liters of beer with all the water removed to achieve a BAC of 12%. Let's use a little common sense. Ward3001 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just use per mil (‰)? And even 1% BAC would be 2½ times the normally lethal amount (which is 4‰)84.238.113.244 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Ronson

You wanted a respectable publication to mention the relationship: here you go.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And nowhere in the article will you find confirmation from either Lohan or Ronson. In fact, the only response from either of them is: "Ronson’s response was succinct but deadly: “Are you retarded?”" Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LA Times also had a meta-article about them: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story Siawase (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, no confirmation from either Lohan or Ronson. There is a lot of reference to "gossip media". So far this is mainly a story on the tabloid stories about Ronson and Lohan. Not exactly the kind of reliable confirmation of information required by WP:BLP. Ward3001 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. Neither person in a relationship is required to explicitly talk about it before we can write about it. That would be ludicrous. The most reputable newspaper in the world has stated, as fact, that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship. The Times is not a tabloid, it is a broadsheet newspaper with rigorous fact-checking processes and what it says on almost any topic can be referenced.

You talk much about WP:BLP. Show me where in WP:BLP it states that we are not to mention someone's significant others when we have reliable references to back it up. As the LA Times wrote, "we've reached a moment in which the Lohan-Ronson pairing can simply be reported as a fact because people have, you know, eyes". I will write up a paragraph using these two sources and any other reputable ones I find - it is absolutely acceptable on Wikipedia to add new information as we find it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Have added information to personal life section. Also found an article from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/gayrights.celebrity?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

This really isn't a rumour or secret by any stretch of the imagination. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What you say is even more nonsense. How else are you going to know if someone is lesbian if they DON'T talk about it, unless they have sex publicly (and don't give me the crap about them kissing in public; Madonna and Britney Spears kissed in public and no one is writing that they have a romantic relationship). Yes I do write a lot about WP:BLP because it is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia (something that I'm sure you would prefer to ignore). It is fundamental not simply because it is the basis for quality writing, not simply because it pertains to the lives of living people; it is fundamental because it affords Wikipedia legal protection against lawsuits for libel. I suspect you have not read it in it's entirety or you would know that (on second thought, maybe you have read it but decided it's not important). You want something directly from WP:BLP. Here it is:

Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies.

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively.

You can write what you wish, but if it stretches the truth (i.e., is not clearly verifiable with a reliable source), it will be reverted. If you choose to edit war about it, you will be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You really are approaching this a very aggressive perspective, aren't you? All I've done is provide reliable, verifiable (and high quality) sources to substantiate the stories of Lindsay's relationship history and you've responded by accusing me of never having read WP:BLP, which I have, many times (more times than you, I bet), the last time being just before I wrote the above post to ensure that it hadn't changed, you have lectured me on the importance of WP:BLP, and threatened to have me blocked in an extremely unpleasant tone. All this and I have never even set foot on this article before. Assume good faith please. Wikipedia is a harsh place without it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back at Ward3001's version. The lack of confirmation from either party is an important point, and the "breath of fresh air" crap is completely unnecessary. I've tried a few times to just delete these silly love-life sections from celebrity articles, and can't make that stick, but there really is no reason to have them. Whom she dates and what she does with their genitals is really of no import in an encyclopedia. Even when confirmed, there's very little reason to have them. Unconfirmed, it's just gossip.
Kww (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that someone's love-life is categorically unencyclopedic? There's nothing to support this in wikipedia's policies, nor is it something other encyclopedias categorically shy away from. And since you say you can't make your deletions "stick", it's obviously not something that there is consensus agreement about either. Siawase (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that my paragraph takes into account what the sources say, which is that Lohan and Ronson are in a relationship. The sources I have used are reputable, they are national broadsheets that employ fact-checking and aren't in the habit of libellous gossip-mongering. Furthermore, I am making no assumptions about the sexuality of Lohan and Ronson: I neither know, nor care whether either of them is actually lesbian or not. What cannot be denied, however, if one reads the sources (and indeed, checks google news for more similarly upmarket publications) is that these two are in a relationship. Ward's version not only ignores this, but employs weasel words in order to suggest the opposite. WP:BLP is being bandied about a lot, and I agree sensitivity should be taken when writing about the personal lives of celebrities, but there is a difference between sensitivity and censoring. WP:BLP contained no guidance to the effect of "ignore high-quality journalism". There is no violation of WP:BLP to state facts and to supply references with which to verify them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the weasel word is yours: "relationship". I am in a "relationship" with lots of people, but no one uses that word to describe our friendship. There is powerful inneundo in that word. And I have not denied that they are friends, that they have been seen publicy together. I have simply not led everyone to believe that it is more. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

...ok, if that's the way you choose to interpret that word, we can add the word "romantic" in front of it to make it perfectly clear for you. I have no desire to "lead" people to believe that Lohan and Ronson are in a romantic relationship either, what I want to do is use three national broadsheets to calmly and non-hysterically mention that they are together (romantically). You have to agree, surely, that The Times is a reputable publication which employs fact-checkers, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But what are the facts? That Ronson and Lohan have been seen together a lot, in positions and circumstances that make people think that there is a romantic relationship between them. Many gossip columns have stated that there is one. Those are the confirmable facts, and that's what the LA Times story you quote says, and then spends a lot of time discussing the ins and outs of journalism about gay relationships when one or both parties hasn't publicly stated that he is homosexual or bisexual. Not a bit of that is important enough to be in the article, and most of it isn't even relevant to the article.
Kww (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I am not trying to quote any gossip columns or tabloid rags. I am trying to use three (or two, if you don't care for the LA Times) reputable, national broadsheets to state that the two are romantically involved. I am not attempting to insinuate anything that can not be clearly referenced by this articles. I am not trying to state that either of them is gay. I don't really see what wrong with adding a sentence or two about there with such firm sources. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(just putting a little note in the middle of this to say that there is no reason to discount the LA Times. It's one of the most circulated broadsheets in the US, and has won something like the third most pulitzers of any American paper. It's absolutely a WP:RS. Siawase (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm not saying that you are quoting tabloid rags. Your reliable sources aren't talking about a confirmed relationship between Ronson and Lohan. They are talking about how the gossip about them is of a flavor that surprises them, because no one is acting shocked about the lesbianism. It would go well in an article titled Gossip tabloid treatment of lesbian relationships throughout history, but they don't cover anything of interest in this article.
Kww (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. As I said, the reliable sources are mainly writing about the gossip and taboid sources. And until Lohan or Ronson make a public acknowledgment about anything more than friendship, the reputable sources know better than to say more. Ward3001 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're being very misleading. Of course who a person's partner is is of interest to this article. It doesn't warrant a large space, but then I'm not trying to give it one. Just because the broadsheets are talking about public reaction doesn't mean that they don't accept the relationship is there. The reaction of the world is the angle of interest to the broadsheets, not the relationship itself. And they are very clear that the relationship is real. The very first line of the Times article is, "So, Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." Not allegedly, not rumoured to be, is shacking up with another woman. That is a baldly stated fact, a fact that would expose them to a costly libel suit if untrue, and fact which has been vetted by the paper's fact-checkers, and got through. I don't see why we can't use that as our source? We are in the business of sharing facts, after all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's you who is being misleading with more weasel words. Neither Lohan nor Ronson have used the word "partner" (which clearly implies romance) to describe their relationship. You are simply assuming, quite unjustifiably, that they are partners, just as you have assumed that they have a "relationship" in a romantic sense. And Lohan and Ronson have not used the words "shacking up". To my knowledge, the only words they have used publicly are "friends" or "friendship". You may wish for it to be more, and you may prefer to ignore the fact that what Lohan and Ronson say about themselves is critically important to what is written here, but that's not the way it works with biographies of living people. Ward3001 (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in BLP does it state that the subject of the article must confirm each fact before wikipedia can cover it? Siawase (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Whether either person has acknowledged it or not is not the only standard by which a fact can be established. The standard is whether the claim can be verified/substantiated with reference to independant reliable media sources. Which, in this case, it can. Stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship without a source in a Wikipedia article violates policy - stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship and then citing a national broadsheet newspaper with fact-checking policies as the source for that information is responsible editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best language to use is, but treating this information neutrally and encyclopedicly with sourcing needs to happen. BLP is not violated when we have reliable sourcing, which we do. In addition to the ones cited above there's these. Frankly the personal life section should be trimmed of much of the voluminous car crash fluff and something about her new romance can easily be added without violating any policies whatsoever. Banjeboi 08:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the car accident segment should be shorter. It should be mentioned, but we don't need a blow by blow. Some of it was trimmed off in FortyFootEcho's big deletion spree [4], but more needs to go. (and some other things probably needs to be restored instead.) Siawase (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will give that section a copyedit. My problem is that I don't really follow Lindsay's life and might chop something critical off. Watch my edits. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, down to a much more sane size. I do think we do need to add stuff about her partying and notorious reputation in the press. Then add information on her relationship history, current relationship with Ronson, and possibly her relationship with her family, because they seem to get on quite well and I think this is probably notable in her circles. :) And then that will be comprehensive enough. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a great job cutting that down! The July 24, 2007 and August 23, 2007 accounts could probably be cut down even further. Your ideas for expansion sounds good. This old version [5] has sourced material, both on relationships and her partying. But some of the sources aren't the best, it'd be better to search people magazine, as they have probably covered most of this. It could probably be cut down a bit, and I don't think there needs to be a "relationships" header. Siawase (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper Calum best source [6], and if we're keeping the mention of when Lindsay got together with Wilmer, here's a source for that [7]. People on the feud with Duff ending [8] Here's an account of her partying ways that could be used to support a sentence on that [9] Siawase (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even with impeccable sourcing, why do you think the feud with Duff or dating Wilmer is important enough to mention?
Kww (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they have been very widely reported by the media, including by reliable sources, and wikipedia is supposed to represent all significant aspects of a subject that have been published by reliable sources. However, I think the Wilmer source is pretty weak on when they got together and it'd be better to just mention that they were dating in 2004, without specifying the timespan (unless someone finds a better source.) Siawase (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If we went by "widely reported by the media" as a standard, I could probably include a few lines about every bar she has ever been spotted in. Her notability is three-fold: 1) an actress; 2) a singer; and 3) a party animal. We tend not to emphasise number 3, because we aren't a gossip column. Even if it was, I don't see the Duff or the Valderama stories as being significant in any of the three lights. Fifty years from now, would anyone consider either of them to be a defining and memorable part of Lohan's life?
Kww (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree with Kww. This information about spats as a teenager and previous boyfriends needs to be done with consideration of WP:WEIGHT. There's a lot more to this than whether the information can be sourced. We could write endlessly about her life with sourced information, but is it all equally important? These are blips in the life of Lindsay Lohan. And in a few years, these personal matters will be even more trivial. Let's keep things in perspective. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for overwhelming coverage of them, just a sentence or two, which would not be WP:UNDUE. Lindsay and Wilmer has been given almost as much attention as her movies, and a lot of coverage from reliable sources.[10] [11] every bar that she's been spotted in has not [12] [13] [14]. (and no I'm not using WP:GOOGLE as final proof, but it does give a decent rule of thumb measurement of the scope of the coverage.) If fifty years from now they're completely forgotten, come back and edit them out then. It's like you're trying to WP:CRYSTAL to keep material out. I don't understand why you two are so adamant on this, but seemed not to mind the massive undue weight that was given to the car accidents. Siawase (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, did I say anything about the car accidents? Ward3001 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not, which was my point. You are very concerned about WP:UNDUE where her love life is concerned, but not when it comes to other aspects of her personal life. Siawase (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please practice your mindreading skills elsewhere. You don't know what I think about her car accidents. I simply pointed out the need to treat her personal life with consideration of WP:WEIGHT. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tweet tweet!

OK, everyone out of the pool and no splashing please. Lol! Seriously though we are making progress and everyone agrees that reliable sourcing and adhering to BLP are both important. I think it's reasonable to state something like Lohan's romantic relationship have also been widely covered, for instance with _____, ___ and ______. As of ____ 2008 she has been seen romantically involved with _____. I agree going into unneeded details isn't helpful but either is leaving out Valderama et al if it's been so widely covered that not even mentioning it will stir more drive by drama. Let's continue to clean up and source items and if we report things in a well written manner, I think, a lot of the vandalism will melt away. On another note I've cleared off most of what seems to be resolved talk page items, I'm not sure about the rest. If they are resolved please feel free to either mark them with {{resolved}} or even move them to the archives. Banjeboi 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Lohan, so the fellas I left in were because I don't know how long they lasted - I would to venture to say that anyone who was serious, however briefly, needs to be namechecked and referenced, even if nothing else is added. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic content as it stands right now [15] is fine, thought it needs more cleanup. Maybe move the entire relationship chunk down to the bottom of the Personal life section, because it feels a bit jumbled and not at all chronological right now, for example the life and style comment on her partying coming after the coverage of the partying. Sources from people.com for her relationships should be in the old version. [16]. Vilmer was her most significant boyfriend, not sure about the others, other than that Riley has undue weight right now. Oh and thanks for archiving the old talk benji! Siawase (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, okay, well if you want to rearrange that so there's no undue weight, that would be grand. I'm just wondering if anyone knows where we might be able to get some more images? Flickr's not turning up anything but the article seems a bit sparse. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lindsaylohanmugshot.jpg ? ;) I gotta leave right now, but I'll look into it tomorrow. Siawase (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did actually add that, although it's a DREADFUL photo... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A few of you apparently have no respect for the concept of consensus on Wikipedia. There has been no consensus reached about stating that Lohan has been "involved" (another term for "romantic relationship") with Ronson. This continues to be a point of significant disagreement, and if a couple of you continue trying to railroad your version of her "relationships" into the article without consensus, this is going to WP:ANI, and if necessary mediation and/or arbitration. Ward3001 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, we all seem to have a consensus to include this with you alone deleting. Banjeboi 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, look again. And consensus is not determined by voting. Ward3001 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looking. And I see me, Benjiboi, and Siawase in favour of including the information, you against, and Kww somewhat ambivalent but concerned about BLP. No, I put that at about, ooh, 75% approval, normally considered the threshold for consensus. Obviously consensus is not determined by voting, except in RfCs which you have convened... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One more time: Consensus is not determined by voting either here or in the RfC below. There is an ongoing RfC to get the opinions of more than four or five editors. This is standard operating procedure on Wikipedia, and if editors continue to edit war this will be addressed at WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you desist from throwing around threats about going to ANI? I have been there plenty of times to report edit warring, and all that will happen is lots of people will weigh in about how lame it is to come to ANI over who Lindsay Lohan is dating, someone will protect the article until we come to an agreement on the text, and then it will be unprotected. That's it. Throwing ANI around like some kind of boogeyman simply highlights your own inexperience of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And would you desist in barking out orders that you expect other editors to jump to. I or any editor can go to ANI as I please, and excuse me but I'm not convinced that you have a crystal ball to tell the rest of us how ANI will respond. And you also don't have a clue how much experience I have with ANI. So please stop the personal attacks, because your attacks on me have reached that level. I will assume that you understand the consequences of personal attacks and that as a regular you don't want to be templated, so I will kindly ask you here to stop making personal attacks. Disagree with me all you want on the issues, but stop making this so personal between you and me. I've tried to ask you to do that repeatedly, but it does not seem to be sinking in. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't sinking in Ward because I'm not attacking you. A personal attack is writing "You are a moron", it is not "you are misrepresenting everything I am saying and Wikipedia policy and I have a right to correct you". You will find no evidence where I have been even been incivil to anyone over this issue, let alone engaging in personal attacks. However, your own comments include, "don't give me the crap about them kissing in public", "it is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia (something that I'm sure you would prefer to ignore)", "I suspect you have not read [BLP] in it's entirety or you would know that (on second thought, maybe you have read it but decided it's not important)", "If you choose to edit war about it, you will be blocked.", all within approximately twenty minutes of an entirely innocent post. I think it is obvious who has been indulging in threats and personal attacks. And I must say, I find it highly ironic that you have ordered me to "desist in barking out orders" given your own commands (including templates) to other editors to cease edit warring when we weren't, to stop making personal attacks when we weren't, to discuss on the talkpage when we already were, usw.

You're right, I have no idea what your experience with ANI is, but to judge from the way you seem to think it will magically solve this dispute immediately and, from other things you have been writing, get people blocked, you seem to have little experience with filing reports there. Please, don't take my word for what will happen, go read it. I'm sure there are many similar cases on the current page where editors have brought editing disputes, the collective adminship has yawned and said "Pft", and one admin has locked down the page until disputes are resolved. And if you want to risk getting sucked into the BLP wheel wars, be my guest. But it won't achieve much. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why it isn't sinking in, but you are making personal attacks. You don't have to call somone a moron to make a personal attack. You have accused me of making statements about you that I have not made (several times on this page). And how is "desist in barking out orders" any worse than "desist in throwing around threats", or any worse than "highlights your own inexperience of it" when you have no idea how much experience I have (and you admitted that above)? Basically you're accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, or maybe of being a "moron". Or accusing me of thinking that ANI will "magically" solve this dispute when I did not say or even imply that. The composite of all of this is a personal attack. So please, stop talking about me and focus on the issues of the article. I'm willing to put whatever you think I've done to offend you behind me if you will please stop talking about me and instead talk about whether you agree or disagree with my edits about Lohan and Ronson. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk)

You don't see the utter irony between incivilly starting your allegations of personal attacks with "I have no idea why it isn't sinking in"? Also, I am discussing the paragraph with the other editors, and we are steadily working towards a compromise - you seem content to leave warnings on other people's pages and claim I'm attacking you. Yes I am saying you don't know what you're talking about as far as ANI goes, but so far as I know this is not a personal attack, it making a statement of what I am observing from your edits, unless you consider inexperience some kind of damning epithet. You may not have said that ANI will magically resolve the dispute, but you certainly implied it when you wrote "if editors continue to edit war this will be addressed at WP:ANI".

Now, in the interests of fairness, I did actually look through your contribs to see if you do have any experience of ANI. I noted that you have posted to it four or five times in two years, mostly to report users who were editing in a way you didn't like. The one exception is the ANI report you filed three days ago about Wikimancer, with whom you are disputing the exact same thing as here, but on Talk:Samantha Ronson. I note with interest the conclusion of that case: an admin told you that Wikimancer was not attacking you as you claimed, but was reponding to your points, and that no admin action was necessary. Rather as I predicted above.

I couldn't possibly agree or disgree with your edits regarding Lohan and Ronson as you haven't made any, you just keep asserting that we can't put any information in because of your own standards of evidence that no-one else on this page agrees with. So, let's reach a deal where, you will stop aggressively asserting things are in BLP where they are not (and having now seen the problem you're having at Talk:Samantha Ronson I understand why you approached my mild suggestion all guns a-blazing), like we have to remove all facts that haven't been confirmed by the person themselves, and I will cease having to point out you are mistaken. Regardless, I intend to continue productively collaborating in the sections below. Deal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to negotiate a deal with me by asking me not to defend my positions regarding Wikipedia's policies (i.e., WP:BLP). I'm sorry, but that is one of the most outrageous requests that anyone has ever made to me on Wikipedia. In fact, it's one of the most outrageous things (apart from blatant vandalism) I have ever seen on Wikipedia, period. And you tell me you're not attacking me, but you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. And, PLEASE, a scan through my edit history hardly puts you in a position to judge what I know and do not know about Wikipedia's practices and policies. I could selectively scan your edit history and create all kinds of false allegations about you -- but I will not do that because (1) it is inappropriate behavior and (2) it would be dishonest.

I suppose I have no choice but to try to ignore your personal attacks because pointing them out seems to provoke you to do it even more. I may be able to do that up to a point. But I will not abandon Wikipedia policies to appease you. I will move forward with expressing my opinions about the contents of the Lohan page and Wikipedia's policies. It's up to you whether you can focus on my edits or continue to attack me personally. I sincerely hope you will not continue the personal attacks. I truly hate for this to turn into something uglier than it already is. I find this very sad that you have decided to personalize honest differences of opinion about Wikipedia contents by trying to portray me as some sort of maniac who has no knowledge of Wikipedia. But I am entitled to express my opinions about the Lohan page and my opinions about Wikipedia policy, and I will continue to do so. I hope you can accept that. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, making distinctions between your own position and that of BLP. I shall consider that progress. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson

Issue: Should terms that state or imply a romantic relationship (e.g., involved, partners) be used to describe Lohan and Ronson if they have not stated publicly that such a relationship exists?

• Neither Lohan nor Ronson have stated that they have a romantic relationship. To state or imply that they do (with the reasoning that they have hugged and kissed publicly) is a serious violation of WP:BLP, which states that BLPs should be written conservatively. Some editors have repeatedly used words such as "involved", "partners", or "relationship" (imply a romantic relationship and included in the same paragraph or section with discussion of other romantic relationships), offering as justification that Lohan and Ronson have been seen together publicly and have embraced and kissed publicly. But there is no reliable source that has indicated that either Lohan or Ronson have acknowledged a romantic relationship, and, in fact, one sourced quoted Ronson: "Ronson’s response was succinct but deadly: “Are you retarded?”". Unless either of the two make a statement confirming romance, WP:BLP demands, on the basis of conservative editing, that there should be no statement in Wikipedia indicating, implying, or hinting such. Ward3001 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the test is whether they have stated in public that one exists. If they had remained silent, I would have no issue with including a statement at the same level as any other involvement in the article. Faced with a denial, I think that BLP concerns are raised.
  My primary issue with it is one of significance ... I would happily remove all discussions of romantic involvement from the article, thus solving the problem indirectly.
  Kww (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just because some editors seem confused, I'll clarify it: I am absolutely opposed to the inclusion of this material, given that it has been actively denied by Ronson.
  Kww (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ward3001 seems to have a severe problem with my use of terminology. To me, saying someone is "involved" or "partners" with someone with whom they are "in a relationship" is as obvious as the light of day that I am referring to those people as being in an ongoing romantic relationship. I would venture to suggest that most of the English speaking world would understand those phrases exactly as I understand them. Ward seems to think I'm trying to insinuate something that I am actually stating quite publicly, and I do not understand his objections to this. If he would prefer me to explicitly use the term "romantic relationship", I am willing to do so, as in my view the terminology I am using means exactly the same thing. I just don't think it makes for very good copy.

Furthermore Ward appears to be deliberately misrepresenting my views and arguments. I have never, in any post I have made to this page or elsewhere, on Wikipedia or the Internet, claimed that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship based on some photos of them kissing in public, and I defy anyone reading this to prove otherwise. To claim I am doing so is entirely disingenuous and an attempt to discredit me. In fact I have never seen any of these photos. I have said that Samantha and Lindsay are in a relationship, sorry, romantic relationship, because at least three national, reputable broadsheet newspapers with fact-checking policies and processes (One of which I read and this is how I came upon such information) have categorically stated that they are involved, sorry, in a romantic relationship. These papers are The Times, The LA Times, and The Guardian. All these publications are regularly cited on articles thoughout Wikipedia because they are bastions of high-quality journalism with sound fact-checking policies. None of these articles are ambiguous, suggestive, or require inference, they are all this-is-totally-libellous-if-it-weren't-true: "So Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." (The Times), "Lohan and Ronson are dating in a public way, with much photographic evidence." (The LA Times), "On the one hand another golden couple proudly joins the not-very-long list of out lesbian power players. One half of the couple is DJ and designer Sam Ronson...the second half of said couple is…Lindsay Lohan?" (The Guardian). This is not the insinuating, gossip peddling tabloid nonsense that Ward is claiming I am trying to insert (note he did not mention my sources at all). This is a fact being reported by some of the most serious mainstream media in the world.

Ward has also repeatedly misrepresented the contents of WP:BLP, it does not say that the only standard of evidence for a romantic relationship between two people is direct acknowledgement of one of those two people. It seems perfectly obvious and correct to me that neither Lindsay nor Samantha should consider it any of the media's business whether they are dating or not, and that neither of them should feel inclined to send out a press release about it. I would also like to point out to Kww that neither has issued a denial of the relationship, the "Are you retarded?" comment seems to me to be a "Isn't it damned obvious we're together?", and could also be seen as a "What the hell does it have to do with you anyway?". What WP:BLP actually says is "Be very firm about the use of high quality references", "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." I think I have established that my sources are impeccable. Furthermore, I am not seeking to add any sensationalist claims - I find there nothing particularly controversial about the fact that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship, sorry, romantic relationship, and a brief sentence or two mentioning it with citations is absolutely fine with me. I do not desire to blow this up into anything more than just another part of Lindsay Lohan's life, which we are documenting.

In short, I am asking for an acknowledgement in the article of what The Times, *The Times*, has established as fact. I do not see this as a violation of WP:BLP, but an example to up-to-date responsible editing. If Ward finds my wording overly suggestive, he is welcome to rewrite it. But to continue to revert my work completely with the demand of a standard of evidence higher than not only Wikipedia, but mainstream media and every court system in the world requires, is unhelpful. I welcome input on this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not about you and me Dev920, it's about the contents of an article and Wikipedia policy. So stop throwing around all the accusations about me misprepresenting you or saying that you said this or that. I have not mentioned you once in the RfC until you brought it up.
• I have not misprepresented WP:BLP. You have put words in my mouth. I have said that WP:BLP says we are to edit conservatively when there is uncertainty or controversy about a topic involving a BLP. Now are you going to deny that, requiring me to uselessly post direct quotes from WP:BLP (again)?
• What is "as obvious as the light of day" to you is not to everyone else, Dev920, because everyone doesn't see things the way you do. Your interpretation of events is not everyone's interpretation of events.
• the "Are you retarded?" comment seems to me to be a "Isn't it damned obvious we're together?": Your interpretation, which you are entitled to, but you are not entitled to assume that everyone else must come to the same conclusions as you do.
• I stand by my position: If Lohan and Ronson do not acknowledge that they are in romantic relationship, it is not conservative editing (per WP:BLP) to imply that they are.
• Now, Dev920, please try to focus on the issues of the RfC and not me. Ward3001 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You may not be mentioning me by name, Ward3001, but there's no doubt who you are aiming your comments at, given this RfC has been initiated on the basis of my edits. You have misrepresentated BLP because you are claiming that BLP requires either Lindsay or Samantha to confirm the relationship themselves, which is not true. To quote Benjiboi below, "The only BLP issue requiring a self-declaration is for adding categories about religion and sexuality." BLP does indeed say to edit conservatively when "there is uncertainty or controversy about a topic involving a BLP" - however, there is no controversy or uncertainty. Instead we have rock solid reliable sources stating a fact that I wish to include. You can cite as much of WP:BLP as you like, indeed, you could write the entire policy out here for my perusal, but the fact is there is no uncertainty about the relationship at all. Three national broadsheets would not have had the temerity to state the two are together outright if there were, a point which you seem to be studiously ignoring.

Furthermore, I am aware that I don't have the same interpretation as everyone else, and I certainly didn't claim that mine was the correct one (Please note I provided two interpretations of the phrase, one of which was not mine, and left it to the reader to make up their own minds). You similarly have your own interpretation which is not de facto correct. That's what this RfC is for, to come to a consensus on the issues at hand.

Now, maybe if, Ward 3001, you will desist from making false claims about my terminology and my views, which you have made the center of this RfC through your opening explanation, I will cease pointing out your misrepresentation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) One more time, Dev620. This is not about you and me. I have said nothing about you until you brought it up. One more time, Dev920, I have said that WP:BLP requires conservative editing if there is contentious material, and that stating something about romance not confirmed by Lohan or Ronson is not conservative editing. And stop accusing me of making claims about you. You are getting close to personal attacks. Please. This is an RfC, not a shouting match between you and me. Ward3001 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support _romantic_ relationship. I think enough reliable sources have already been produced to support including this material. The only BLP issue requiring a self-declaration is for adding categories about religion and sexuality. Their romantic relationship has now been widely covered by reliable sources which is what we need for BLP concerns. It's good to be cautious but the same standard is applied to all BLPs. Banjeboi 01:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• comment: In the event this information is included, it should state something along the lines of "Although Lohan has been reported to be romantically involved with Ronson according to [insert media sources here], neither party has acknowledged such claims". Otherwise my position is oppose per Ward3001s reasoning "If Lohan and Ronson do not acknowledge that they are in romantic relationship, it is not conservative editing (per WP:BLP) to imply that they are". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out I don't want to "imply" anything. I want to cite The Times to say they're "shacking up", as the Times so graciously put it. It's not unreasonable to want to reference the newspaper of record for the UK on WIkipedia, surely? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You can directly quote the newspaper in whatever way you choose, so long as you write it in a way that states these sources claim it as a fact - not that wikipedia "agrees" its a fact. Lohan and Ronson's denial of the situation has to be given equal representation, otherwise it gives the impression wikipedia has dictated the relationship as a bona fide fact, which it isn't. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing written in Wikipedia should be stated as a fact on its own merits. It should be written and then cited with reliable sources. I have also pointed out that neither party has denied anything, as I have further explained below. If they had denied it, I certainly would not be arguing this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• HUH? Since when do we require the acknowledgment of the article's subject before adding anything that is widely reported in the mainstream press? There's no such requirement in WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not aloof, it doesn't have its head in the sand. If the rumors are reported by the mainstream press it belongs in Wikipeida. As an aside, this whole worry about "oh we are ruining her reputation" is inapplicable in this specific case. They are both prancing around holding hands and kissing, basically begging for the innuendo and rumors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Bookkeeper. There's no need for a big argument. Make the claim, cite the source, mention that neither person has acknowledged a romantic relationship. Everybody's happy, right? Queerudite (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• my own proposed revision after reading all three article: Several media outlets, including The Times, The Guardian, and The Los Angeles Times have reported on Lohan's relationship with DJ Samantha Ronson. The Los Angeles Times reported that Lohan and Ronson have made "happy and seemingly sober appearances -- they kiss, they hug, they hold hands, they shop for groceries" and The Guardian described them as "Hollywood's newest out gay couple". However, neither Lohan nor Ronson have made any conformation about their relationship. Kate Aurthur of the Los Angeles Times reported "Neither Lohan nor Ronson has spoken to the media about their relationship, and not surprisingly, Lohan's publicist would not comment for this story nor make Lohan herself available, writing in an e-mail that Lohan "wants to keep her private life private". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support it generally but perhaps trim it down a bit. Banjeboi 03:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I basically agree with the content, but it is too long, and too detailed. In addition, its pointless to state that "several media outlets have reported...." Everything in Wikipedia must be sourced though "media outlets". In addition, the description of each media outlet, i.e. "The Los Angeles Times reported...", is unnecessary. That's what the footnotes are for - to see the source. The size of Wikipedia would triple if the name of the source is included in the sentence of the information it sources. So this is my alternative verison: In 2007, Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson began what seemed like a homosexual relationship. However, both Lohan and Ronson have denied the rumors and maintain that they are simply good friends. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There hasn't been any denial from Lindsay or Samantha since they began showing signs of public affection earlier this year. Lindsay's publicist was quoted as saying they are "close friends", which isn't a denial. How about something along the lines of "In 2008, several media outlets reported that Lindsay was in a same-sex romantic relationship with DJ Samantha Ronson. Lindsay has yet to comment on the exact nature of their relationship, stating through her publicist that she "wants to keep her private life private."TheGifted1 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • True, Lohan never really denied it, but it seems like Ronson did. But I have a few problems with your proposal. Firstly, as I stated above, "several media outlets reported" is unnecessary. Of course. It wouldn't be allowed in here if not for the reporting of several media outlets. Just start with what is being reported. Secondly, I don't think any of the media outlets really stated explicitly that they are in a same-sex relationship. They just reported what we are all observing - that it looks like they are in a same-sex relationship. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The Ronson quote "Are you retarded?" is open to interpretation. She was actually asked "Would you like to comment and put the rumors to bed that you two are a couple?" and that was her response. It's certainly not a denial. So how about "In 2008, Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson began what appeared to be a romantic same-sex relationship. Lindsay has yet to comment on the exact nature of their relationship, stating through her publicist that she "wants to keep her private life private." `TheGifted1 (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think we should be overanalyzing the Ronson quote. We are not in a court of law, so her statements should just be taken at face value, which seems like a denial. If her seeming-denial is unacceptable to other editors, maybe we should just have her quote and leave the interpretation to the readers. I pretty much agree with TheGifted1's latest version except for the missing Ronson denial/statement. I think its important that we have something from Ronson regarding the relationship. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Could somone please post a link to the source after the question quoted above (added by TheGifted1) to which Ronson gave the "retarded" reply? I've read the reply in a source, but I've never read the question verbatim. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
            • The original source appears to be this paparazzi video [17], and the paparazzo's question was: "How's everything going with Lindsay? Do you have any comments... at least put to bed... the rumors that you two are a couple? Can you at least put that to bed for everybody?" (my transcript) Siawase (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Thanks. That helps clarify in my mind what she meant (and I'm sure others will disagree, which is fine). I think she meant either: "Leave me alone, I'm not talking about it" or more likely "The rumors are not true". Ward3001 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Your interpretation, Ward, your interpretation... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Gosh, thanks Dev. I didn't realize that's my interpretation. I was beginning to think that you and I had tuned in to different frequencies in reading Ronson's mind. Thanks so much for clarifying that I'm simply interpreting and you are ... well, what are you doing? Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • I'm offering several different interpretations because I don't really know nor care about reading Ronson's mind, and leaving it to other people to make up their own minds. Thankyou for asking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
                      • So far I've only seen one interpretation offered by you. Or did I miss something? Maybe I did. After all, I seemed to have missed the fact that what I wrote above about "retarded" was my interpretation because it was important for you to point that out to me. And I think I missed that you're allowed to offer interpretations without being told it's an interpretation but apparently I'm not. Ward3001 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we have to include it, why not just change Lohan has also dated Wilmer Valderrama, Harry Morton and Calum Best to Lohan has also dated Wilmer Valderrama, Harry Morton, Calum Best and Samantha Ronson? What makes this particular romantic interest deserving of a paragraph?
    Kww (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Come on, you know we wouldn't have these megabytes of discussion if this was just some dude. A lesbian relationship is a whole new can of worms, and deserves a separate paragraph. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I support the inclusion of information about the relationship. There appears to be enough evidence that a public consensus exists for the validity of the information. If you trimmed out all the "public consensus" created by "mainstream media" from celebrity articles then there would be very little left. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that it is prudent and relevant to add that neither have confirmed a relationship. How about we include what Samantha said verbatim? ie, something along the lines of: "[whatever we decide to include re: a romantic relationship]. Lohan has declined to comment (ref la times), and when asked about it by paparazzi, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?"(ref the times)" Siawase (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Bookkeepers approach, make clear this is reported in the mainstream media, but not acknowledged by the persons themselves. Also note that even if not true, these rumours themselves are certainly verifiable (WP:TRUTH - WP:V). Arnoutf (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• We should never make it clear that something in Wikipedia is reported in the mainstream media. It would imply that other stuff about living people are not reported in mainstream media. It should be obvious that if there's something controversial in the bio of a living person it has been reported in the mainstream media. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd proposed revision: Though several sources have reported on what appeared to be a romance between Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson, neither Lohan nor Ronson have confirmed they are in a romantic relationship. Lohan's publicist responded via e-mail that she "wants to keep her private life private". Same thing basically, just shorter. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Still to many details. Don't need "several sources" (obvious), "publicist", or "email". I prefer the latest version put forth by TheGifted1 above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Brewcrewer. But I would consider accepting Bookkeeper's 2nd version (with some shortening per Brewcrewer) on two conditions (1) if the verbatim response from Ronson (worded above by Siawese as "when asked about it by paparazzi, Ronson responded 'Are you retarded'") is included. I don't mean to lengthen the section, but if you include Lohan's publicist's response, you need to include Ronson's response. If I did accept these edits, it is predicated on the assumption that POV-pushers don't try to sneak in additional weasel words, such as describing Lohan and Ronson as a "couple" or use the word "relationship" outside the context of Bookkeeper's wording above. For example, making a comment such as, "The couple have not confirmed ..." sneaks in a word beyond the wording provided by Bookkeeper and implies that Wikipedia is confirming they are a "couple". I hate being so paranoid, but I have been forced to quibble about false assumptions. (2) If Kww's argument (he makes some good points) prevails (not that I speak for him, but what he has said about too much emphasis on all relationships, not just whatever might be going on between Lohan and Ronson), we don't need to leave the Ronson stuff in and eliminate everything else, per WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. In other words, if the stuff about the "boyfriends" goes, the stuff about Ronson should go. Ward3001 (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:I'll amplify that argument a bit ... the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to chronicle the social life of any person. Nearly any young woman will have a series of relationships, emotionally ranging from friendship to love, and physically ranging from handshakes to genital stimulation. It's expected. It isn't particularly notable, even though there is a subset of the journalistic culture devoted to studying it and emphasising it. The proper answer to how to handle these things isn't to worry about how to finesse the wording of something, and determining whether it's real, unfounded gossip, or a publicity stunt: it's to realize that no matter which of those three it is, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. It isn't important. It is not the source of Lohan's notability. It doesn't have a demonstrable impact on her career. It doesn't have a demonstrable impact on her performances, choice of subject matter for her performances, anything. Sometimes, relationships are notable: Yoko Ono's impact on the dissolution of The Beatles, for example. In most cases, they are trivia, and are not of sufficient importance to warrant article space. Do any of you really think that if Lohan had not dated Wilmer Valderrama that Lohan would be doing something radically different? That the "feud" with Hilary Duff was anything more than gossip-tabloid fueled publicity mongering? The best way to deal with this article is to strip all of the boyfriends, girlfriends, "feuds", and similar crap out of it.
  Kww (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a tension between Wikipedia the real-time encyclopedia and Wikipedia the record for the ages. I agree much fluff turns up on celebrity articles that will not be relevant in fifty years time. However, in the interests of being up-to-date, which is an advantage over other encyclopedias much trumpeted by the Foundation, we should be mentioning a person's significant relationship history, and specifically their current partner. Indeed, we have a special value on most biographical infoboxes specifically for this purpose. Whether the relationship with Wilmer had a significant impact on Lohan's life or not remains to be seen, but to omit him from the record completely is to produce a five month gap in which Lindsay Lohan would appear misleadingly single. Your suggestion of some alleged feud with Hillary Duff I added because I found it buried in the history with a documented relationship with someone as both being similar crap is missing the point of being an encyclopedia - we're not here to document the interesting bits, but to to provide a detailed biography of Lindsay Lohan's life, and Wilmer, Samantha, and regrettably, all the car crashes, are a valid part of that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Kww , you continue to argue like it's established fact that someone's romantic life in and of itself is unencyclopedic. You argue that it shouldn't be included because you don't see how it's relevant to her work, but since when was that a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia? WP:BLP is clear that the principle to "include only material relevant to their notability" is only valid for relatively unknown living persons, while Lindsay Lohan is a well-known public figure. And even if we were to take the cautious road here, Lohan is also notable for her personal life, which includes her romantic life. But I think your idea that it should be more clearly tied into her professional life does have some merit. The article right now already establishes that the instability and chaos of her personal life has greately affected her career. It might even be possible to weave more of what's under the "personal life" header right now into the meat of the career section of the article, what's under "Rise to fame and career development" header right now. Though I think it'd be easier to maintain the article if the personal life section is kept separate, but cleaned up/rewritten into a chronological narrative. As for the "boyfriends" specifically, I think they serve as excellent illustration to the aforementioned instability, with each relationship only lasting 3-6 months, and I see no reason to exclude them while including the rest of her chaotic incidents. The Hilary Duff feud is more tenuous, but again serves to illustrate the instability, and if we can source it from reliable sources, it's not tabloid gossip. The Hilary Duff article, which has a good article rating, includes quite a lengthy paragraph on the feud, so there it was obviously not considered prohibitively unencyclopedic. Siawase (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• My 2 Cent Drive By Opinion - is that it should be mentioned. At the very least, there are images of the two holding hands in the pretty glossy rag mags. According to the Us! article I read this morning at my doctor's office, Ronson has updated her Facebook status to "In a relationship". I realize thats hardly a good source, but the fact remains that there are good resources out there that state the obvious truth. If you have (you being the plural you) issues with the subject of homosexuality or bisexuality, then please dont post on the subject, and leave it to folks without a bias. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. A point that I think I can agree on is that whatever is decided here should not be based on "issues with the subject of homosexuality or bisexuality". It should be decided on the basis of quality writing, good journalism, and adherence to Wikipedia's policies, especially those related to biographies of living persons. Ward3001 (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some clarifications - someone has written above that more coverage should be given to Samantha Ronson than Lindsay Lohan's previous partners because she is the same sex. I would like to point out this is not my position, I believe Ronson should be given more covergage because she is Lohan's current partner. If and when the two split, I would happily relegate her to the prior history list and that will be that.

Secondly, much is being made of Samantha Ronson's comment "Are you retarded?" to a reporter who asked about their relationship, with several people claiming it is an outright denial. However, this comment can also be read as "Isn't it obvious?", "What does it have to do with you?", and quite possibly, "Why would I ever say anything to the press about anything?". Furthermore, I highly doubt that The Times, The LA Times, and The Guardian would have printed articles stating outright the two were in a relationship if they believed Samantha Ronson had previously denied it. Please consider that all three papers have rigorous fact-checking polices, and frankly, these articles would never have seen the light of day if the editors were not absolutely sure of what they were publishing.

Finally, the consensus of the RfC seems to be to include the information, though particularly noting that neither party has publicly commented. However, the proposals being put seem to me extraordinarily badly written, with total disregard to what the actual sources are saying. Bear in mind that the three sources I have provided are stating that Lohan and Ronson are definitely together, but what is being forward is more "Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson seem to be in a relationship", which is weaselly in the extreme and also a distortion of the very sources on which we are staking that sentence. I understand entirely the desire to avoid any blame laid at Wikipedia's door, but with a direct inline citation stating a fact, we should feel free to state it ourselves, not place a bias on it and hedge around with disclaimers. As a tertiary source, we are reporting what others are saying and we should do so accurately. With this in mind I will start another section with my proposed version and we can begin the task of collaboratively editing it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that there should be an assumption that Ronson is Lohan's current partner for reasons I have stated repeatedly above. Therefore, I disagree that Ronson should be given more coverage than anyone else.
• I'll repeat my disagreement about what Ronson meant by the "retarded" comment (although obviously no one knows except Ronson).
• Regarding "the consensus of the RfC seems to be to include the information", that depends entirely on what is meant by "the information". There certainly is no consensus to including it as you have written it below under "Initial proposal".
• I disagree that "we should feel free to state it ourselves", if "it" means stating that Lohan and Ronson are "in a relationship", "partners", "together", etc., and there is no consensus to state that. Ward3001 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Initial proposal

Ok, I haven't thought about this very much but taking into mind the points raised in the RfC I suggest something along the lines of "(boyfriends blah blah blah) Most recently, several newspaper, including The Times, have reported that Lindsay Lohan is in a romantic relationship with DJ Samantha Ronson, sister of Mark Ronson (cite Times article). Neither of the two have spoken publicly on the topic(cite Guardian), though some commentators have expressed surprise at the lack of reaction to the fact that both are women (cite LA Times)."

It's clunky, but I think it gets in everything that everyone wants. It's short and to the point, which I think everyone would appreciate in comparison to the car crash coverage. I open to your editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much oppose this version and much prefer Bookeeper's 2nd revision with some tightening up as suggested by Brewcrewer and the addition of Ronson's "retarded" response (with no interpretation of the "retarded" comment). I also could accept Kww's proposal that all the personal life be scrapped (I'm not referring to her substance abuse, car accidents, or arrests -- just the stuff about boyfriends and Ronson). Ward3001 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The references provided are stating as a fact that the two are in a relationship, I think this proposal is just fine. It's short and to the point.TheGifted1 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The references that have discussed Lohan and Ronson are either stating the impressions from the tabloids, or are stating someone's opinion that they are in a "relationship". What the references are not doing is stating that Lohan or Ronson (the only two who truly know) have confirmed a "relationship". Ward3001 (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Times, Guardian and LA Times are not tabloids, and you're disparaging them as refs simply because you don't like what they said gives me concern. I SUPPORT INCLUSION of this material, as it is sourced from reliable sources. That neither has confirmed or\r denied doesn'tmake a bit of difference, according to BLP. We report that three international papers of good reputation stste they are involved, include Ronson's "retarded" quote (though it seems rather inelegant, to me), and be done with it. Jeffpw (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • The Times and The Guardian references are not stating tabloid impressions or someone's opinion. They are stating it as a FACT. If you are referring to The Guardian article, the writer states that Lohan and Ronson are a couple then gives his own opinion on whether he believes it himself, which he does. I thought we already established that we don't need a direct confirmation from Lohan or Ronson with proper references from reputable sources. Have I missed something here? TheGifted1 (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I never said that The Times or The Guardian is a tabloid. And if the writer refers to L & R as a "couple", that writer is expressing his/her opinion that they are a "couple". The writer is not providing confirmation from Lohan or Ronson that they are a "couple" Ward3001 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that confirmation from either side is not required by Wikipedia's content policies. It's your own standard, and it's far higher than Wikipedia or the media itself demands. We do not need to wait to add the information if we can cite a reliable source. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not conservative editing (as required by WP:BLP) if neither Ronson or Lohan has confirmed a romantic relationship. So we need to wait for a reliable source to report that one or both of them have confirmed something. 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Another drive-by response: having read the articles and the discussion here, I'd say that either Bookeeper's second revision or Dev920's recent take would be acceptable (although I don't know whether it's terribly relevant to a biography of Lindsay Lohan that there's been little reaction — I'd suggest cutting that clause). Perhaps something combining these two proposals would work, like this:

"Several sources have reported that Lohan is in a romantic relationship with DJ Samantha Ronson, sister of Mark Ronson; however, neither Lohan nor Ronson have confirmed the relationship or spoken publicly on the matter. Lohan's publicist responded via e-mail that she "wants to keep her private life private."

I'd put all three citations after the first sentence, and repeat the LA Times cite after the quotation from the publicist. I certainly think that this meets the requirements of BLP. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't meet WP:WEASEL. The nutshell sentence is "Avoid using fuzzy, estimated statistics and hearsay evidence such as "some people say"." To confuse the issue just makes it seem like we're trying to cover it up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can accept Josiah Rowe's version with a couple of changes. Ronson has spoken publicly about it in her "retarded" comment. That should be included (without interpretation of what she meant). A lesser point: we don't need the info about Mark Ronson; he's irrelevant to the issue, and she has her own article if people want details about her family. Ward3001 (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

Here is my attempt at a very neutral segment that sticks as close to the sources as possible:

First sentence: "In July 2008, several media outlets commented on Lohan and Samantha Ronson."(ref la times)(ref the guardian) - No qualifiers here about a relationship or the nature thereof, just plain both of their names.

Second sentence: "The Times reported that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam."(ref times) - Quoting the source directly to sidestep the issue with how to interpret and word this on wikipedia.

Third sentence: "Lohan's publicist has declined requests for comments,(ref la times) and when asked about it by paparazzi, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?".(ref the times)" - Keeping the Lohan camp's non-comment as brief and neutral as possible, and including Ronson's response verbatim, to sidestep the issues with interpreting it and leaving any ambiguity intact. The "retarded" quote might be a bit inelegant, but it is a response from her on the issue, and I think it's more accurate to include it than to exclude it with a "neither has confirmed", and the quote is notable enough that the the times article included it.

So in full the segment would read:

In July 2008, several media outlets commented on Lohan and Samantha Ronson. The Times reported that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." Lohan's publicist has declined requests for comments, and when asked about it by paparazzi, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?"

I agree the "fresh air" quote is over the top. I think it would be better if we could source and include a separate, plainer sentence that Lindsay's life is more stable now (ie, she's on time for work, and possibly also that she hasn't been involved in any car or substance incidents with the police). "the lack of public interest at the fact that Lohan and Ronson are both women." is not so crucially relevant that it needs to be included here, and if there is objection to its inclusion I just think we should leave it out and move on. Siawase (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not crucial, but I felt that, as the three articles we are using to cite this paragraph are all taking that angle, it would be more faithful to the sources to include it. The fresh air quote can go, I was just wanting to pad out and comment on the stability of Lohan's life (the separate sentence is probably a good idea). I find the final two sentences fine, but the first is very vague and clunky. That would need a rewrite I think. Maybe an adapted version of my first sentence? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this works just fine. although can we change it to "and when asked to put the rumors to bed by paparazzi, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?" That is, after all, what really happened as evidenced in the video link above. She wasn't asked if they were a couple. She was asked for a denial that they were a couple, which I think makes a big difference if people are going to have a unbiased interpretation. No? The first sentence is a bit awkward, I agree with Dev920. TheGifted1 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick update of the proposal: "In July 2008 The Times reported that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." Several media outlets have commented on the tabloid coverage of Lohan and Ronson. Lohan's publicist has declined requests for comments, and when asked by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?"" (with an added reference to the paparazzi video) I agree that the language is quite clunky, so any suggestions for more elegant copy-editing are most welcome. Siawase (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be okay with that, though possibly with the addition of "who have regualrly been seen in public together" after "tabloid coverage of Lohan and Ronson" in order to clarify why the tabloids are covering them. Otherwise it reads a bit weirdly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Times piece is an editorial, not a news report, so you cannot say The Times reported .... All of your sources are editorials, not news reports.
Kww (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Times opined ...? Siawase (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that doesn't matter. I would venture to say that the article is an article, not an op-ed (especially given I found it in the Sunday Times Magazine), but in any case op-ed pieces are subject to the same fact-checking proecesses as articles, and the author makes it clear from the first sentence that she is stating Lohan and Ronson are together as a fact, not her opinion. The opinion part is about what people are making of the relationship, but it is clearly stated as fact that the relationship exists. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it matters a lot. Direct quote from WP:RS: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Even if the article states it as fact, that does not matter, because the article is an opinion piece.
Kww (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And WP:RS goes on to say "When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.", both criterions are fullfilled here. Siawase (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you crediting The Times ... I object to the word "reported". Maybe "An opinion piece in The Times indicates ..." Better yet,

• Several media outlets, including the Times[ref] have commented on the tabloid coverage of a relationship between Lohan and Ronson. Lohan's publicist has declined requests for comments, and when asked by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?"
  Kww (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agains, this moves into weaselly while simultaneously making the statement so vague it becomes meaningless. What about, instead of "reported", we use "published a piece stating that". That way it becomes clear that The Times is saying it, but what "it" is remains clearly defined. This also has the additional benefit of greatly improving the flow as well. Would that be ok? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing weaselly in it at all. It just states what is actually known to be true, and doesn't try to present quotes from opinion pieces as if they were known facts.
Kww (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it begins with "some sources said", which is totally weaselly. And I'm sorry, but quoting an opinion would be adding "Well, Sam and Lindsay appear to be shacking up", wat we're quoting is a fact stated in the beginning of an opinion piece in order to provide context for the opinion that follows. We use opinion pieces all the time to cite statistics across Wikipedia, I see nothing wrong with it here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What about this: "In July 2008, The Times reported that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam."(Times ref.) Lohan's publicist has declined requests for comments, stating Lindsay "wants to keep her private life private." (L.A. Times ref.) When asked by a paparazzi to deny the rumors her and Lohan were a couple, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?" (ref paparazzi video) Several media outlets have expressed surprise at the lack of reaction to the fact that they are both women (L.A. Times.) TheGifted1 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, go back to the version just prior to this one. We don't need the stuff about media's surprise at the lack of reaction. The article is about Lohan. The section is about Lohan and Ronson, not about the media per se. But thanks for chipping away at this TheGifted1. Ward3001 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's another version. I've tried to take everyone's proposals and piece them all together. Obviously, let me know what you think. We should really try and wrap this up. :)

"In 2008, several media outlets began commenting on Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson, who were regularly seen being affectionate in public. In July 2008, The Times published a piece stating "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." Lohan has yet to comment on the exact nature of their relationship, stating through her publicist that she "wants to keep her private life private." When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson quickly responded, 'Are you retarded?'" TheGifted1 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Times did not report it. An opinion piece in the Times stated it as an opinion. You can just drop the second sentence, and it will be OK:

• In 2008, several media outlets began commenting on Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson, who were regularly seen being affectionate in public. Lohan has yet to comment on the exact nature of their relationship, stating through her publicist that she "wants to keep her private life private." When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson quickly responded, 'Are you retarded?'"
  Kww (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This version looks OK to me. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely meaningless without the second sentence. "several media outlets began commenting on Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson", on what, exactly? On their taste in fashion, perhaps? We might know the story behind this paragraph, but imagine you are seeing this for the first time. It tells you nothing. Without that quote from the Times, this version is meaningless. I support TheGifted1's version, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, which TheGifted1's version? I support the second version by TheGifted1 (without "Several media outlets have expressed surprise ..."). Second point, if the "shacking up" statement is included (and I'm not saying it should be) it should be very clear that it comes from an opinion piece, as in "The Times published an opinion piece" or something similar. Ward3001 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, The Canberra Times, an Australian broadsheet, just syndicated the LA Times article: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-allout-loro-show/1224721.aspx Clearly they found it legit as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a legitimate op-ed piece. That is a key part of it that you seem to overlook ... they aren't news pieces, they are editorial opinions. That key phrase "I think" appears in the timesonline article, the Guardian article is from their "Comment is free" section. The LA Times article is in section labeled Celebrity News, but includes phrases like Hmm. Perhaps, then, it's more complicated.., a clear sign of an opinion piece. They may be reliable opinion pieces, but they are opinion pieces. That means our handling of the information cannot treat them as confirmed fact ... it must treat them as opinions.
Kww (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kww that the Canberra Times article is an opinion piece. I agree with Siawese that the "fresh air" crap is way over the top. I think Siawese's version of what should go in the article comes fairly close to being the way it should be, although Bookkeeper's second version and Josiah Rowe's versions (with some tweaks that I suggested above) are a bit better. Ward3001 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, two articles detailing her new-found professionalism: [18] [19] Siawase (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please strike the "point of order" bit above the RfC. It's unhelpful and seems to violate policy about assuming good faith. Banjeboi 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There is no assumption of bad faith. It is for information, just as AfD templates ask readers not to remove the template until discussion is complete. Viewed strictly, that could be considered assuming bad faith, but it is only to provide information because some editors may not realize the policies. No editor is accused of anything. It simply states a general policy about canvassing. There are similar templates that are frequently used on Wikipedia on talk pages where there is debate. Ward3001 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by commentary... Having scanned through the various arguments, I think we're close to getting a consensus on what we should have and I'd like to have something in the article to forestall the attempts by others to insert their wording (e.g., note what I pulled out in this edit). As Dev920 (rightly IMO) points out, the first sentence of Kww's version leaves too much ambiguity about what the media is reporting. How about this for a first sentence: In 2008, several media outlets began commenting on an apparent romantic relationship between Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson, who were regularly seen being affectionate in public. (bold segment my addition). Thoughts? 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs)

I agree this will almost certainly continue to be debated, which is exactly why I think we should avoid trying to formulate this on our own with the word "relationship" and then argue til the cows come home what qualifiers to use for it, and instead use a quote directly from the most reliable source we have. I'm all for putting whatever bells are whistles are necessary around the quote, hopefully we'll get some input on that from the RS noticeboard. Siawase (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you seen the recent cover of "Life and Style" magazine? It shows Ronson and Lohan holding hands. This topic has been in a whole bunch of magazines that I have honestly lost count. In "People" magazine, they have both confessed to dating (and even went into a few deatils I will not mention right now) and Ronson has even both Lohan a 22,000 dollar ring. How could this be a violation when it's been confirmed many times in many different magazines? --Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Holding hands means nothing. Give us a link to the People article that confirms "they have both confessed to dating" and the "22,0000 dollar ring". Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read through this a few times and I think it's very reliable source.http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/ny-etlindsay0720,0,844304.story

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg47/IllegallyInsane/Picture200021-1.jpg

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg47/IllegallyInsane/Picture200011-1.jpg This are also photos of the magazine that has confirmed it. --Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of a mention of their (insert qualifiers) relationship legally or technically being able to squeeze it past the Biographies of living persons policy, but what we add to the article must specifically be verifiable per the Verifiability policy using sources compliant with the Reliable sources policy. If you read Dev920's first post under this header ("Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson") she outlines the three sources we're working with right now, one of which is the LA Times article you mentioned. Siawase (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Since we've yet to get any input from the RS noticeboard, I went ahead and searched wikipedia for examples on how to handle opinion pieces. I came across this case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Enhanced interrogation techniques, which ended with using the verb "claim" about the contents of the piece in question. I think that would work well here too.

My preferred wording of the sentence would be In July 2008, The Times published a piece claiming that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." , omitting "opinion", because to me it mostly looks like a lighthearted investigative piece rather than an opinion piece. I also think including this quote verbatim, and particularly the phrase "shacking up", in itself makes clear the level, tone and style of the piece. But if some here insist on using the wording "opinion piece" I can absolutely live with that if it means we can finalize this. Siawase (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to quibble over a word, but I think this is important and I disagree. It's an opinion piece. And we should be straightforward about it and use the word "opinion". Remember, the requirement is that we edit conservatively. We don't need to give anyone the impression that an opinion could be a fact. Ward3001 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The part we are quoting however, is not being given as an opinion. And I would also like to point out that the requirement for conservative editing is over contentious material, and that the fact that Lohan and Ronson are in a relationship is evidently uncontentious by the fact that three national newspapers felt comfortable publishing it without any fear of legal recriminations. Furthermore, more important to this particular case is the need for to produce clear and precising copy, per the Manual of Style. The various qualifiers that have been suggested are unnecessary and vague up the very fact we are trying to add. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece. And stating that they are "shacking up" is an opinion. The issue of whether they are "in a relationship" is contentious material, as evidence by (among other things) all the heated debate on this talk page. Finally, WP:BLP (i.e., conservative editing) is more fundamental policy than stylistic guidelines. Ward3001 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose ... an opinion piece is an opinion piece, and, despite protestation, is not subject to the same fact checking as a news article. It's subject to meeting the standard of "will we get sued?", which, in the case of a public figure like Lohan, would require her to prove actual malice: , i.e, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not. Essentially, so long as the writer believes it may be true, it's OK to print. That's why it is so hard for public figures to win suits against the tabloids ... it's nearly an impossible standard to prove. That's also why we have to be careful with these things, and remember that not known to be false is a long way from true.
Kww (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the libel laws in Britain, the jurisdiction of the Times and the Guardian, place the burden of evidence on the defendant - anyone can sue you and you then have to prove that what you said about them is, in fact, true. Thus British newspapers only print, in article, opinion pieces, whatever, what they can substantiate. Stuff that cannot be gets alleged in the same way as People does it. The articles I have cited are not making allegations, they are stating facts. And as I have stated numerous times above, it is not in any way a violation of WP:BLP to state fact and then cite a reliable source to back it up, whether you happen to believe that source is jumping the gun or not.

Incidentally, the only contentiousness surrounding this relationship is on this page, by yourself and Ward3001, everyone else has supported inclusion of the relationship in this article. And any cursory inspection of the last few days coverage by tabloids, broadsheets and blogs, of Lohan and Ronson features unanimous agreement that they are together, have been together for some months and that their relationship has the approval of her mother, father, brother and friends. I just haven't quoted them because I consider the oldest newspaper in the world to be sufficient evidence. I would argue that consensus has been formed and that you are in a very small minority. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has not been formed. And it's not just Kww and me to have stated opposition to stating that Lohan and Ronson are "in a relationship". For example, here's what The Bookkeeper said: "my position is oppose per Ward3001s reasoning 'If Lohan and Ronson do not acknowledge that they are in romantic relationship, it is not conservative editing (per WP:BLP) to imply that they are'." The RfC has been in place for three days, which is not enough time for consensus to emerge. I've seen consensus debates that lasted for a month or more. And please remember, consensus is not formed by counting the votes. If we can't form a clear consensus among ourselves, informal (or formal) mediation may be needed. Ward3001 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001 and I have both agreed to quite reasonable versions. You seem unwilling to accept them.
Kww (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for the sake of getting this over with, I am going to accept the addition of "opinion" to the second sentence which you wanted, which Siawase has also agreed to, despite our reservations over the flow. The tightening up of the text can wait until further developments in the media coverage. This therefore brings us to a version that everyone is more or less prepared to accept and which I am now going to add to the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to rush things. I reverted your change, as the RFC has barely run at all, and we haven't received any feedback from the RS noticeboard. I still strongly prefer Several media outlets, including the Times[ref] have commented on the tabloid coverage of a relationship between Lohan and Ronson. Lohan's publicist has declined requests for comments, and when asked by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?"
Kww (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. Ward3001 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I like the wording proposed by TheGifted1 at 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC). It's not perfect (I'm not a fan of the weasel-worded beginning), but it's the best thing yet proposed. As a side note, not only do we not need confirmation from Lohan and/or Ronson, but even an outright denial from one or both (and I'm talking about a plain-English denial, not the "retarded" comment which is clearly open to many different interpretations) does not mean that a) they aren't in a romantic relationship and b) we shouldn't write about it. If it's widely reported on by reputable sources, it can be included, and if it's relevant and significant to the topic, it should be included. Cmadler (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll disagree (again) that we do not need confirmation from Lohan or Ronson. That is not conservative editing. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but is the Daily News (New York) considered a reputable newspaper? According to its wiki page, it is. They had a article the other day with a quote from Lindsay in which she refers to Samantha as her girlfriend and declaring Samantha "taken". Here's the link http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/07/25/2008-07-25_lindsay_lohan_makes_girlfriend_joke_abou.html There was also another article from Ok! Magazine with a similar quote from Lindsay. http://www.okmagazine.com/posts/view/8089/ TheGifted1 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article is under the "Gossip" tab. And the article title uses the phrase "girlfriend joke". I'm sure some will argue that the "joke" part refers to something else, but it is entirely possible that Lohan is joking when she says "my girlfriend". It's not like she's blind to the stuff in the tabloids. Ward3001 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Samantha is known to play Lindsay's songs quite often, which is what I interpreted the "joke" as, but it can be interpreted the other way as well. For the record though, is NY Daily News considered reputable? TheGifted1 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the print version of the Daily News is reputable. I'm not sure about the online version. In any event, I think the fact that the article is categorized as "gossip" pretty much rules out its reliability. Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Daily News (New York) is a tabloid and doesn't look like the most reliable source "Though its competition with the Post has occasionally led the Daily News to engage in some of the more sensationalist tactics of its competitor". OK! also ran a story from MGM Foxwoods, but according to them Lindsay said "she's not single". [20] (very important distinction clearly, esp since none of it is going in the article since it's all tabloids.) Another tabloid article from Chicago Sun-Times earlier this week[21].

On a slightly more reliable note, People magazine had an article in the print edition this week where they didn't mince words: "Sure, some people may find Lindsay Lohan's romance with a woman intriguing. But the nightlife-loving actress and her girlfriend, A-list deejay Samantha Ronson, aren't about to let curiosity about their relationship spoil a perfectly lovely time." but it's not available online. There was also a brief mention of their Cannes antics in NY Times back in May [22] But with the The Times, LA Times and The Guardian, we're not exactly lacking in sources as it is. Siawase (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I haven't vanished by the way, it's just I don't have anything else to say at the moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another break

• Comment. I'm a bit stunned that this hasn't been resolved already. Fine dismiss the piles of sources that aren't considered reliable, we still have more than enough that are. And the assertion, I believe it's Ward3001's that we need to edit conservatively doesn't conform to BLP policy, at least no longer in this case. That she is romantically involved or dating, or whatever the agreed upon sourced statements support Sam Ronson has been widely reported in reliable sources and the consensus certainly seems to be to include this information. That some editors want to keep fancruft and other BLP-violating material out of the article is admirable but this has moved beyond that even with the malformed RFC accusing other editors of agendas. If there is no more legitimate reasons to keep this information out then it serves the articles to sort out the language so we can all move on from here. Banjeboi 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Please have some patience. The RfC has been up for six days; that's less than one week. Consensus frequently takes more time to achieve than that. I want this over with as much as anyone, but I would be stunned if it was resolved by now. And if we are to "serve the article", consensus is better than mediation. I think we are much closer than we were a few days ago. We are giving this some more time to be sure that there are no more strong opinions on either side of the issue.

I can agree up to a point that consensus has been achieved to include something about Lohan and Ronson. There is still some disagreement on how it is to be stated.

And please tell me specifically what is "malformed" about this RfC. Is it malformed because there was not an instant consensus? Please tell us what specifically is "malformed" about this RfC.

And there has been no "accusing editors of agendas". There was a caution against canvassing. And keep this in mind. Canvassing can be done by people on either side of the issue. Canvassing can be done by people we haven't even heard from so far. For example, canvassing can be done by people with an "agenda" to keep anything about Ronson out of the article, not because of WP:BLP issues, but because of an anti-gay bias. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I must concur with Benjiboi about the length of this RfC. The majority of my experiences have taken around 3-5 days. Anything which lasts longer than this either has very complicated technical issues or implacably opposed editors (in which case the RfC is just another weapon in their ngoing battle). Continuing any longer than this simply results in the rest of the editors losing interest, which we can see happening here. Seeing as the majority of people who have commented here have supported the Gifted1's version, and others who commented before he posted it support something along the same wording, this was why I added it, there has little added by either side in the past four days. You can continue this RfC as long as you desire, but a week or more is really not as standard as you keep saying it is. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, consensus can be reached in a few days, but when consensus isn't obvious, it takes longer. You've been offered a very reasonable version of the change that puts the information you want to add into the article, and have constantly rejected it as weaselly. Change your stance on that, and consensus is around the corner. Continue to fight for "The Times said she's shacking up", and consensus is a long, long way away.
Kww (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of us has any hard statistics about the average length of an RfC. I've been directly involved in RfCs that continued for over two months (and not at my request, by the way). I'm sure those are exceptions, but I don't think a couple of weeks is an exception. So some of us think an RfC should last no longer than 3-5 days; others of us think it could go weeks. Apparently there is no consensus about how long it should take to achieve consensus. As for editors "losing interest", we don't need to jump to a conclusion that an editor has lost interest simply because the same editors don't keep posting over and over. All sides have expressed opinions. The RfC is designed to ensure that a large part of the Wikipedia community has had an opportunity to at least be aware of the debate. Some people -- conscientious editors -- may not log in more than once a week. I usually log in throughout the day, but I have gone more than a week without logging in, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The world will not fall apart if this RfC stays up a little longer. Let's try to keep this perspective, and remember that opinions can emerge from either side of this issue. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From the RfC page: "RfCs are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run." While it seems to be close, it seems clear that consensus has not yet been reached in this case. Cmadler (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said an RfC couldn't go on that long, I said that they usually don't and claiming that "Consensus frequently takes more time to achieve than that" is simply not true. I too have been involved in RfC and general disputes that have dragged on months, but they were in a severe minority and usually ended by a block, ban or withdrawal of one side. I would also like to ask that Ward3001 stop dropping vague threats about what will happen if we don't comply with what his ideas on how we should proceed. I appreciate the fact that he has stopped claiming he will go to ANI if people continue to oppose him since I pointed out the ineffectiveness of an ANI report in this case, but saying "consensus is better than mediation" is simply another attempt to present an "or else". Mediation is a voluntary process that requires the consent of both sides. I say now, mediation will not be useful regarding this issue and I will not be a consenting party. Moreover, the developing consensus is obviously in favour of inclusion, however you spin it, and mediation would be a fruitless process here, merely an opportunity to rehearse my "reliable sources" and Ward's "conservative editing" mantra for a fresh audience.

I don't know what Benjiboi had in mind when he said that the RfC was malformed, but I would suggest that given it started narrowly focussed on my choice of wording and zoomed straight into wider questions of whether Lohan and Ronson's relationship should be included at all and using which sources, this would constitute malformed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And I would like for Dev920 to stop making false accusations about me simply because I disagree with her on an issue. I have not threatened to do anything by using the words "consensus is better than mediation". I think anyone who speaks fluent English would not intepret the statement "consensus is better than mediation" as a threat, and the words "or else" were not written or implied. WHERE IS THE THREAT IN THOSE WORDS? I did not say, "If consensus isn't achieved I'll start mediation". And I think almost all responsible editors would agree with me that consensus is better than mediation. I want us to achieve consensus. I don't want to go to mediation. I used those words to ask for patience with the consensus process so that we can achieve consensus. I strongly suspect (and if necessary I'll find it) that a phrase similar to ""consensus is better than mediation" is among the pages on dispute resolution in official Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So what in the hell is wrong with me making a statement that is in perfect compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines and one that most decent editors would agree with. I have tried to ignore this personalizing the RfC by Dev920; I have ignored earlier personalizing comments. But it appears that Dev920 is trying to provoke me. I also have little doubt that my defense of using five simple, noninflammatory words will result in Dev920 escalating her personal comments toward me. It seems that Dev920 will only get satisfaction if I stop adding anything to this page. But I'm not going to stop editing. So please stop putting words in my mouth and (for about the tenth time) please focus on the issues in the RfC and not on me personally. This is one reason the consensus process slows down, because not only do I have to waste my time defending myself against false accusations, but other people have to waste their time reading it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Ward knows exactly what I'm talking about, but for the benefit of everyone having to read this I will explain: writing of a vague, undefined but unpleasant consequence meant to strike fear into one's audience so they do what you want is a commonly known rhetorical technique called Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Mentioning blocks (on mine and benjiboi's talkpages), trips to ANI (see a long way above) and now visits to mediation in a context which makes little sense is a simple way of scaring people without actually having to do it (because applying for any of those would immediately be shot down in these particular circumstances, a fact conveniently unknown by many inexperienced editors not wanting to "get into trouble"). I put Ward's earlier threat ("if we don't come a solution, this will be addressed at ANI") of filing ANI reports down to a non-understanding of how ANI actually works, but I don't believe that someone with a PhD in philosophy could be ignorant nor unintending of the paralipsis of "consensus is better than mediation" and "I don't want to go to mediation." - mediation had not be mentioned anywhere in the previous bazillion comments, how has it suddenly become the consequence of not agreeing? You might not consciously pick that up, but your subconscious might hesitate before hitting the save page button on your dissenting comment. It's a pretty good rhetorical device, you have to admit.

Now, I didn't want to have to detail this, because it does severely distract from the issue that we are actually facing of Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson's relationship, but Ward insists on responding to my requests to cease making these threats with blustering about how I am trying to make this personal. This isn't true, what I was trying to do was communicate to Ward that I would prefer he cease ramping up the rhetoric without having to directly analyse his language (although he felt free to do so with mine, and indeed based the entire RfC on questioning my terminology), which would be time-consuming and not obviously relevant to the task at hand, but Ward seemingly chose otherwise.

Ward is mistaken in thinking I will only be satisfied if he stops posting altogether. I should be very happy if he could desist from these tactics, as I will then not have to go to the trouble of pointing them out for the benefit of everyone else reading in order to ensure a fair discussion. Save us both the proverbial ink, Ward, and let's get on with editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

These endless, irrational, and paranoid personal attacks are inappropriate here, and because they (and my responses) detract from the important work on this talk page, I have created a subpage of my user page on which I will address these matters. I will no longer respond here to Dev920's personal comments toward me, although I will continue to discuss the issues as needed. It will take me a few days to set up the basic information. After that I will invite others to respond if they wish. I apologize to the editors of this page for the many detractions to important issues by my responses to Dev920's rants. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. (sigh) If you choose to do so that is certainly your right. Although I think discussion is generally a good thing there does a come a point when simply making a decision or letting an issue drop may also be appropriate. With about a dozennnn attempts to add this information while the RfC is in process as well as many attempts prior seems to suggest that consensus is to include this information in some form. I hope no one's so naive to think that whatever we finally add won't be changed continually. It will. Instead of setting up subpages and continuing what seems to be one of the longest RFCs imaginable for such a lightweight concern. That these two women are in a romantic relationship seems to be evident to all but wikipedia. I guess I'm a bit frustrated with this as all the energy spent on this discussion could have just as easily been channeled into improving the article. Perhaps we can all lick our wounds a bit and just be in full denial about this; come up with some acceptable enough version and then add it. As better sources, statements and photos emerge the best ones can be added in. Banjeboi 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstood my comment, Benjiboi. I don't intend for the subpage to be a continuation of the discussion about Lohan and Ronson, what should be included, how it should be worded, etc. Any comments about those issues I will place here. The subpage is only for me to organize and respond to Dev920's personal comments about me so that others don't have to wade through these endless personal attacks and replies here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understood it but still feel likes it's not the best use of either of your energies. You're both accomplished and decent editors and this article needs a lot of work. My suggestion is to get this RfC over with, add the content and bury any perceived hatchets. Consider semi-protecting the article if the onslaught gets too much and systematically overhaul the rest of article so you can share in getting it back to a featured article status. Banjeboi 09:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as Ward directs threats at me and not the general populace of this page, that is fine. Benjiboi, I understand the article is already semi-protected, so we have nothing to fear on that score. I think we are in the closing stages in the RfC, so hopefully we will reach a conclusion soon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at a final proposal

In the interest of moving this along I've attempted to combine all the proposals from last week into something I think is ready to be added to the article. It's well sourced, neutral (includes both the claim from the times and the responses - or lack thereof - from both Lindsay and Sam) and is fairly well-written:

In 2008, several media outlets began commenting on Lohan and Samantha Ronson, who were regularly seen being affectionate in public. In July 2008, The Times published an opinion piece claiming that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." Lohan has yet to comment on the exact nature of their relationship, stating through her publicist that she "wants to keep her private life private." When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded, "Are you retarded?"

Ward3001 and Kww expressed above that they would prefer that the quote from The Times is omitted, so here's a rundown of why I think it should be included:

• It's from the most reliable source we have, which is one of the most reliable news sources in existence.
• The way it's used in the original article is to frame the entire piece right from the start, it's not a quote that's given undue weight or taken out of context in any way.
• It's properly qualified as something The Times claimed. We're not presenting it as The Truth.
• The wording of the sentence itself makes very clear the level and tone of the original piece.

Siawase (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Let's move forward people. TheGifted1 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't work for me. It's from a highly reliable source, but it's still an opinion piece. Presenting opinions is not our mission. If you strike the Times quote, the article will convey all the facts we have at our disposal.
Kww (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll support the striking of the Times quote if the preceding sentence is clearer that the relationship between Lohan and Ronson is being taken as a romantic one by the media. Otherwise the reader has no context to understand why their being affectionate with each other is such a fuss. Tabercil (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to Siawese's wording, but I cannot agree with Tabercil that there needs to be a statement that the media takes the relationship as romantic. I think the phrase "shacking up" gives lots of context. Let the reader come to his own conclusions about "being affectionate in public". Ward3001 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I should have been clearer in my comments. I agree with Siawese's phrasing as well for now as a minimum statement. My comment about the striking of Times quote was pointing out a problem I had with Kww's request to drop the quote, as I felt it left the meaning of the paragraph far too ambiguous and not reflecting the media reality it was supposed to convey. Tabercil (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kww: "Presenting opinions is not our mission." which wikipedia policy are you basing this on? Siawase (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond normal expectations of the contents of an encyclopedia? I guess I would have to go with | terrible ideas.
Kww (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When used that way the terrible ideas entry could assert anything. If you dug through the wikipedia policies enough to find that you must have seen that the core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR go into great length on how to handle opinions and opinion pieces, and that nowhere do they state that opinions from reliable sources should be left out. You seem to have your own specific ideas of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I'm not saying they're entirely without merit, but since this is wikipedia it seems better to follow wikipedia's policies as closely as possible. Siawase (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If the fact that the Times source is an opinion piece is truly the only thing that bothers people about its inclusion, it can be easily replaced by this news report from Die Welt, a national German broadsheet similar to the Times. Relevant quote, "A motorcyclist ran into "Mean Girls" actress Lindsay Lohan in the early hours of Saturday morning while she was out with girlfriend Samantha Ronson." Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Shacked up" doesn't seem to be terribly helpful so I would support replacing quote with this new source. Banjeboi 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... one small problem with the Die Welt quote: apparently the motorcycle accident mentioned never happened... see here and here. Yet I came across this small blurb on the Chicago Tribune website here: "Which from all happy and seemingly sober appearances — they kiss, they hug, they hold hands, they shop for groceries — is a romantic one." Tabercil (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then use the Tribune instead. let's get this over with. Banjeboi 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune piece is just a rehash of the LA Times article, so it's not a new source. I don't think it's meaningful to hunt around for more sources right now. There's a myriad of outlets that have mentioned their (insert qualifications) relationship, and we can be here forever if we're to evaluate every single one. I still advocate going with The Times since they are one of the most reliable news outlets in the world, and until Lindsay or Sam clarify first hand, we're very unlikely to get a more reliable source. Siawase (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Chicago Tribune owns the LA Times so they essentially freely rework each others' material - either is fine by me. Banjeboi 09:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. By malformed i was referring to what Dev920 pointed out above - focusing on another's wording rather than a more neutral "what is supported by reliable sources", "should this content be included", etc. That plus the comment above it sternly warning about canvassing and alleging agendas. I'll shovel a pile of good faith that this was all an effort to simply improve things, however, for future RfCs they might be less contentious if they start out in a better spot. Banjeboi 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll accept your explanation in good faith. I agree that both of us are trying to improve the article. Ward3001 (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also this video just published of LAPD Police Chief Bratton talking about why some paparazzi law proposed isn't a problem. Relevant transcript: "If you notice, since Britney started wearing clothes and behaving; Paris is out of town not bothering anybody, thank god; and, evidently, Lindsay Lohan has gone gay, we don't seem to have much of an issue." Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Bratton's comment by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann (31 July, 2008): "Best crazy-ass sound bite". Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I have posted a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get wider input as to how we have to treat the sources here.
Kww (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great initiative, thank you. Siawase (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A good idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Update from noticeboard. "As long as we adequately identify our sources, and the fact it is merely opinion, there is no reason to exclude information; even opinion."

I essentially agree with this and personally prefer to update with more firm statements as soon as we have them. Banjeboi 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

mug shot

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

I agree, the mug shot does not add anything of interest (except that someone arreseted for driving drunk, or indeed anyone on a mugshot, does not look their best). Arnoutf (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia is not a class yearbook. None of the pictures are necessary but they all enhance the article. If anything this is the best picture because its the most real. The best pictures are those that are taken without the subjects knowledge or consent. In addition, the drunk driving arrest was a major part of her life and a picture relating to the issue is a great enhancement to the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position either way at this point, but I'm just curious whether many other articles have celeb mugshots. There are lots of them out there, some that look much worse than Lohan's. I checked a few that I know of (Nick Nolte -- a particularly bad one, Bill Gates, and Tracey Gold). None of their articles have mugshots. Ward3001 (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of turning Wikipedia into a "class yearbook" my concern is for Wikipedia policy on Basic human dignity. To make it clear, I don't like the idea of having a mug shot on any living persons biography. Notable exceptions would be people who are best known or only known for criminal activity, but in Lohan's case and sever other public figures who have gotten into trouble I think it only serves the purpose of mocking them, not enhancing the article in anyway. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am really not that bothered about whether this particular image remains on the article. What I am concerned about is the general lack of illustration, which is why I added it in the first place. An argument could be made that given the sheer number of arrests, convictions, and general contact with the police Lohan has had (not the case with the other people mentioned, whereas Paris Hilton, who has a similar history, does include her mugshot.), it seems entirely appropriate to include the image next to the section describing police involvement, but if anyone can find other images to replace it, I'm fine with it being taken off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to muhshotson principle, if another free photo can be found. We don't use Larry Craig's myg shot, though we couyld. We don't have lurid pics of Mark Foley, though they can be found. It's pure sensationalism to use a mug shot. Jeffpw (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about this one way or the other, but I went googling for more info. Lohan's mugshot has been used repeatedly by the mainstream media to illustrate articles about her arrests etc. [23] so it's not something wikipedia unilaterally dug out of primary sources to mock her. In fact, her mugshot is so notorious that it's been used in advertising[24][25], something which I am not sure if it's an argument for or against inclusion in wikipedia. In addition to Paris Hilton, the article on Nicole Richie also has a mugshot, though looking at Talk:Nicole Richie#Mugshot, it seems it was partly justified there by arguing a mugshot was included in the Lindsay Lohan article at the time, so there might be a bit of a feedback loop going on here. This discussion: Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive_6#Mugshot, resulted in keeping the image, but to my mind it doesn't look entirely conclusive, and largely centers around copyright misunderstandings. Siawase (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at [26] for more articles with mugshots. There were a few entertainers that I noticed, Biography of Frank Sinatra#Birth and beginnings, George Carlin#1970s, Billie Joe Armstrong#Personal life, Tupac Shakur#Prison sentence, Yasmine Bleeth#Drug addiction and arrest, Zsa Zsa Gabor#Legal difficulties, Andy Dick#Public incidents, 50 Cent#Early life and a full article just for the Mel Gibson DUI incident. All in all, my impression is that mugshots are used sparingly on wikipedia, but they are definitely included in other entertainer articles. I'm still on the fence, but looking above we seem to be mostly undecided or against the inclusion, so maybe we should just delete it? Does anyone feel strongly that it should be kept? Siawase (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would much prefer that we replace the image with another better one than removing it altogether. The article is quite stark at the moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

I changed the birthplace of Lohan from the Early life section to New York City, as stated by Kyra Phillips on CNN (see the cites). I also cited Merrick (NYT) and Cold Spring Harbor (also CNN). (The CNN source is from 2005 and gives her middle name as Morgan; I'm not sure how that affects CNN's reliability, as "nearly every other source" did prior to the license plate leak.)

The most reliable-looking place I've seen for what it was before is this post by an unnamed "News LI Editor" edited by "Brianna". That article is dated well after it first(?) appeared on the article as an unsourced edit. The user who made that edit also added this edit that isn't on the page now, and has apparently vandalized other pages (and had account creation blocked indefinitely for doing so). Many pages online (including a site that looks like a respectable press-release site) now take that birthplace as truth.

So if one writes that Lohan was born in the Bronx, or Delaware, or Makemake, I think we should try to verify them more often. I hope I've done my part. :)

--an odd name 09:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicely spotted! I think plain NYC is enough really, which exact part is a bit excessive. Even if it could be verified she didn't grow up there, so it's not crucial. Looks like you did some very thorough sourcing too. I did a quick googling around, and there's a distinct lack of reliable sources confirming her place of birth. The CNN one you used looks like the best one to me too. Siawase (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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)