Jump to content

Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

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)

First off, I don't think Lindsay Lohan is a lesbian. That 'showmance' between her and Samantha Ronson is just an attempt to keep Lohan in the news while she tries to repair most of her ruined career. And if she does admit that she's with Ronson romantically, it shouldn't matter since there are many lesbian celebrities. K-K (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when do we use the discussion page to express our own personal opinions? This isn't a forum, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia and this page is supposed to be used to discuss how to improve the article with verifiable sources, not opinions.TheGifted1 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 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 [1], 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)
  • 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)
  • 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.[1][2] The Times reported that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam."[3] Lohan's publicist has declined requests for comments,[4] and when asked about it by paparazzi, Ronson responded "Are you retarded?"[5]

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.[6][7] In July 2008, The Times published a piece stating "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." [8] 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." [9] When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson quickly responded, 'Are you retarded?'" [10] 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.[11][12] 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." [13] When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson quickly responded, 'Are you retarded?'" [14]
    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: [2] [3] Siawase (talk) 17:58, 23 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." [15], 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". [4] (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[5].

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 [6] 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.[16][17] 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."[18] 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." [19] When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded, "Are you retarded?" [20][21]

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)
They do cover how to include opinions, but it is editorial judgment as to whether an individual opinion is important enough to include, and, if so, whether a direct quote or a summary is necessary. The Times quote doesn't give us any particular new information, cannot be treated as fact, and uses language that can be described as sensationalistic. If you are dying to have the reference, change the first sentence to In 2008, several media outlets, including The Times[ref], and you've got a link to the article.
Kww (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
So do you have any constructive ideas how to form a consensus here? Several editors are insisting we spell out "romantic relationship" in the article, whereas you and Ward3001 are completely against this. The quote from The Times is a middle ground that everyone except you seem willing to consider adding to the article. Siawase (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've actually moved quite a bit by saying that I can accept having the first and third sentences in the article. The nature of consensus is that no one is happy, but no one feels compelled to revert. I've come 2/3 of the way, Dev920 came part of the way by allowing that "breath of fresh air" thing to be dropped. I don't even object to a statement that sources have described the relationship as romantic. I object to the direct inclusion of sensationalist language, or the direct statement as fact that the relationship is romantic.
Kww (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I disagree that The Times' language is sensationalist. But in the interest of moving forward, how about replacing the times quote senstence with this? In July 2008, several newspapers, including The Times and LA Times described their relationship as romantic.(refs) Siawase (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I could accept that.
Kww (talk) 15:19, 1 August 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".[7] Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The AP has spoken, and Lindsay too. "Police chiefs shouldn't get involved in everyone else's business when it comes to their personal life. It's inappropriate," Lohan said in a video shot by paparazzi Friday and posted on TMZ.com. [8] I guess if we wanted to we could include this instead of the "wants to keep her private life private" quote in the article, but it's not really substantially different. Siawase (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay... lets' collect the most recent suggestions and see if we're closer to consensus folks...

In 2008, several media outlets began commenting on Lohan and Samantha Ronson, who were regularly seen being affectionate in public.[9][10] In July 2008, several newspapers, including The Times[11] and Los Angeles Times[12] described their relationship as romantic. 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."[13] When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded, "Are you retarded?"[14][15]

(Note that if/when this goes into the article, the links will be replaced by proper {{cite web}} refs; I did it this way so folks could readily see what was being used to back each item up) Comments? Tabercil (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the Times piece is cited, it needs to be identified as an opinion piece. Ward3001 (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so we state that its an opinion piece in the cite. Tabercil (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, super neutral attempt at including "opinion piece". Also, I think it's more appropriate to put the refs at the end of the sentence since that's what they refer to.

In 2008, several media outlets began commenting on Lohan and Samantha Ronson, who were regularly seen being affectionate in public.[16][17] In July 2008, several newspapers, including The Times and Los Angeles Times published opinion pieces describing their relationship as romantic.[18][19] 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."[20] When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded, "Are you retarded?"[21][22]

Siawase (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
One down, one to go. Kww, your thoughts?? Tabercil (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Grammatically, you need a comma after including The Times and Los Angeles Times, but it's OK aside from that.
Kww (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh, that's an easy fix. But since we have consent from the two strongest dissenters, I'm going to be bold and add this to the article. Tabercil (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the refs and adding it to the article, Tabercil. Siawase (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. And that, I think, concludes that. Fantastic collaboration people. Now if anyone fancies improving the rest of the article... ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_en_ot/people_lindsay_lohan24.3.52.50 (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you scroll up a little bit we have a discussion about this already. Siawase (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  2. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/gayrights.celebrity?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
  3. ^ http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece
  4. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  5. ^ http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece
  6. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  7. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/gayrights.celebrity?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
  8. ^ http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece
  9. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  10. ^ http://video.flynetpictures.com/index.php?module=assetserver&page=assetDetail&assetId=154548&lay_quiet=1
  11. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  12. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/gayrights.celebrity?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
  13. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  14. ^ http://video.flynetpictures.com/index.php?module=assetserver&page=assetDetail&assetId=154548&lay_quiet=1
  15. ^ http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece
  16. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  17. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/gayrights.celebrity?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
  18. ^ http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece
  19. ^ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story
  20. ^ http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece
  21. ^ http://video.flynetpictures.com/index.php?module=assetserver&page=assetDetail&assetId=154548&lay_quiet=1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindsay_Lohan/Archive_9&oldid=1136363043"