Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Weird Cocaine Redirect Error?

Why is it when i type her name in the search engine, it sometimes redirects me to the cocaine page? is this on purpose as a joke because i put her name in spelled accurately and it does it a few times until i get to the right page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolz03 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for that - someone had vandalised one of the redirects (Lindsay lohan) to this page so that it took the user to Cocaine. I've fixed it now, so hopefully things should be good. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, I've fully protected the redirect to prevent a repeat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening

I really don't think it is necessary to include 'she is often photographed by paparazzi photographers'. as many celebrities are and they don't have it on their articles, I think simply stating that she has received much publicity from tabloids surrounding her personal life is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.230.51 (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

new picturre and etc....

well i think she deserves a new picture .......that picture is 3 years old and put her new movie Inferno in her movie section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.235.174 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would love to get a more up-to-date pic, preferably one where she actually looks as pretty as she really is, but I've trawled through Flickr and other places and found none that are usable for WP- they're all either by Getty or the copyright holders won't release them. There was a lovely picture of her a few weeks ago, but it was deleted as a copyright violation. :( I'll see what I can do about Inferno, though if you want to save me some time, you could give me a nice, reliable source (I should read the tabloids more often, but I can't quite bring myself to open them unless I'm in the kebab shop)! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

well....

heres a link if it helps.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(2011_film) i mean shes on the movie cover and everything and her role was confirmed???? isn't that enough?ugghh and yes i agree it takes FOREVER to get a decent picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.235.174 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I added something about Inferno a while ago, but I'll see what I can do about getting something in there. The whole article needs a bit of an update really, so I'll have trawl through Google news. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ok

yeah it does need one......thanks for actually paying attention to my comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.235.174 (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not bisexual/LGBT?

I can't really understand why she isn't categorized as such anymore. I can't really see what about ending a relationship with a woman would indicate someone is now straight or whatever would be implied by that change. Nevermind that it says in the article itself that when she was asked if she was bisexual, she said "Maybe. Yeah." I mean, we have much more to signify that Lindsay is than, say, Angelina Jolie, who clearly is categorized as a bisexual actor. Just kind of seems like there might be an extraordinarily high burden of proof or something for her... 68.227.169.133 (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

She never was categorised as LGBT and she won't be until and unless she identifies herself as LGBT. That is the threshold for such a category, likewise for religions- she's categorised as Roman Catholic at the minute, because she has identified as such, but we wouldn't change that to, say, Judaism or Islam unless she identified herself as such. It's also worth noting she's not categorised as straight either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that this has been discussed (and resolved) several times in the past. Before anyone brings this back up for discussion, they should look through the archives to see all the arguments that have already been made. 209.90.134.121 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle name change?

Lindsay's real middle name is listed as Morgan (not Denise) in "Lindsay Lohan: A Star on the Rise", Mary Boone, Triumph Books, Chicago, Illinois, 2004, pg. 13. Did she officially change her middle name? Silver Bayonet (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, not having access to that publication, but there are multiple online sources that verify her middle name as we have it currently, do you know of any that call her Morgan? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in some length in the talk archives: [1]. Her "professional" middle name used to be "Morgan". Then there was this incident [2]. The old featured version of this article [3] has her middle name as "Dee" referenced to her then official biography. And apparently now we have it as "Denise" referenced to some "leaked" invoice from TMZ? All of these sources are just bizarre and fraught with WP:RS and WP:BLP issues. Siawase (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Hey Siawase, nice to see you! Do we have an unquestionably reliable source for any of these middle names? If not, then I'm inclined to say it should be removed altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you too! As far as I know, we do not. And if the sources we do have were in agreement that would be one thing, but I don't see a way to sort out this mess with what we have now. I'm particularly concerned with the privacy invading BLP issues inherent in the "leaked" primary sources. So I'm going to have to agree, barring better sources appearing, it's probably best we just exclude mentioning a middle name. Siawase (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, she could be generating them with the Mersenne twister and a table for all we know. Leave 'em all out and don't explain how it (may have) changed. It'll cause a small 1b problem, but if we add one name then I think we'd have to explain the changes over time (which invovles adding all of them). We only have shaky (at best) sources for any of the names, and that's not good enough for a BLP. --an odd name 01:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article gets near FA status in the future, it may be possible to satisfy 1b by putting the middle name situation into a footnote. This would avoid weight issues with explaining it at length in the main article text. But more than anything a more thorough source review and if possible better sources would be needed. According to an earlier version of this article "in 2005, Lohan explained to a TEENick audience that she had decided to use Morgan as her middle name because it sounded more professional."[4] However the only reference for this (found here[5]) is to a fan forum: "Lindsay said her middle name is Dee, but she changed it to Morgan."[6] Now, none of this is WP:RS, but it's likely accurate, and it would probably be possible to find sources to sort out the Morgan/Dee situation. But then this new "Denise" thing from TMZ is a whole nother ball of yarn. Siawase (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We can cross that bridge when we get to it- obviously FA is a long term ambition, but we're a long way off at the minute. Having looked at the version from when it was featured, I'm amazed at how low standards were back then. Besides, I think we'd be more worried about 1a if it went to FAC as it is. In the meantime, I've removed the middle name since we don't have a proper source for it. When I have time, I might have a look for some. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I will have to look up the documentation for it, but this is the story as I know it: Lindsay's original middle name at birth was "Dee." However, Lindsay never liked that name, and didn't think it sounded professional enough. So, around 2003/4, she started using the name "Morgan" for 'professional use' - i.e., as her stage name (and I don't think she's even using it anymore now). Her legal middle name continues to be "Dee," as can be evidenced in the copious documentation for the many legal charges and suits filed against her over the past few years, most of them courtesy of TMZ. The only occurrence of this name "Denise" - which I have never seen before (and god help me, I have, for some reason I don't quite understand, been following her career/escapades for several years now), is on a document on TMZ showing her travel itinerary to return to the U.S. from France in the much-publicized 'passport-theft' incident of May/June 2010. I don't know if this is a typo on the part of the "travel agent," or perhaps it was deliberately used on this document in a lame attempt to skirt forgery laws (use your imagination). Whoever changed her name to "Denise" on the main Wiki page should not have done so, as there is only this one document from TMZ to back it up (and not even a legal document at that). when I have the time and inclination, I will find the proper documentation to change it back to "Dee." But until I have the sources, I'll leave it alone, in accordance with WP:RS. Toniskids (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds basically accurate as far as I know, though I believe the use of "Morgan" goes further back than 2003/2004. 2004 was when "Dee" leaked and she began using that instead. I don't like TMZ as a source because of the BLP issues with their privacy invading use of primary sources. But I can't think of a better source either. All the sources that are usually the most reliable (Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, etc) either ignore her middle name or appear to just repeat whatever as a factoid without having done any independent confirmation of it. Siawase (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I read that somewhere when I was doing some research for the overhaul a couple of months ago. I think it was in a biography channel article, so that might be a good place to look. I don't think it had the whole story, but there was a mention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Biography Channel bio is likely to have been based (some segments are close paraphrasing) on an older version of this article, with all the issues that entails. Compare [7] with this old version.[8] But I don't think any of the tertiary sources we've used would be good enough to "settle" a thorny issue like this, as none of them have any evidence that they have done independent research into her middle name. Siawase (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, she's not dead, we noticed

But this CBS news story covers what was a fairly minor incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Ronson

Added a couple of lines on this with a reference. There's a lot more about this on Ronson's Wiki page but it doesn't seem worth duplicating here.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is already covered in the "2008 to present" section, see the Relationships discussion just above. Siawase (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, my apologies fellow editors. I thought it would have been under 'personal life'.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I think it's just another sign that the current structure with the "personal life" section isn't working very well. I'll try to get around to merging that material into the main chronology, if no one else beats me to it (or has a better idea re: the structure). Siawase (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jailed for 90 days: July 2010

Shouldn't reference to this be included?-

"US actress and model Lindsay Lohan has been sentenced to 90 days in prison for violating her probation in a 2007 drug case.

A judge in California said Lohan, aged 24, had failed to attend court-ordered alcohol education classes.

The judge ordered Lohan to surrender on 20 July to begin serving the jail term."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10533925.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.33.27 (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the text and cited. There's a paragraph that starts "On May 20, 2010, Lohan was scheduled..."; it's at the end of that paragraph. --an odd name 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph continues: "...to appear in Los Angeles County Superior Court". In the whole paragraph there is no mentioning of the 90 days in jail. This information is conveniently "hidden" in the references. The paragraph ends with "Revel scheduled a July 6, 2010, hearing to determine whether Lohan had violated probation by not having attended the required number of classes to date" and no mention as to what this hearing resulted in. Any reference to the sentence has been reverted by HJ Mitchell although his argument "already covered above" is simply not true. --92.224.48.55 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting such trivial information in would take vital space away from the two separates entries about the movie "Inferno" or the description of movies she has been dropped from (like The Other Side.)76.211.86.212 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is probably one of the biggest deals to occur in her career, to suggest it is UNDUE weight is absurd. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, see subtopic below: #Probation/convictions controversy. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Probation/convictions controversy

09-July-2010: On July 6, 2010, Lindsay Lohan's probation was revoked, near the end of the 4-year term. I added 2 sentences that this was "controversial" (to put it mildly), because she had completed 3.7 years (92%) of a 4-year probation, and she has been convicted, anyway, of the probated offenses, including 2 DUI convictions. This issue should probably be expanded as a separate section of the article, adding any other details as to why probation was terminated just 3 months before the 4-year period was finished. I think this situation also puts Lohan in the general controversy about people being convicted, anyway, who have completed over 90% of probation requirements. For many people, this means a change of their social status from "clean record" to "convicted criminal" or "repeat offender" for the rest of their lives. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition is POV and not supported by the included ref, which makes no metion of any "controversy". Harry the Dog WOOF 13:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with an AP reference that says she will still have restrictions after rehab. The original edit was WP:OR as far as I can tell. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, find a WP:SECONDARY ref for the "controversy" or calculation of "3 months before". There may be some legal reason that the 3 month figure no longer held by the time of this hearing. I don't know, but we don't have to know, just find a reliable source. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone that far but you may be right to leave it out altogether without further sourcing. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, her social status doesn't change. She was a convicted criminal once she was found guilty and put on probation. You are still "convicted" even if your sentence doesn't involve sending you to the slammer.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lawyers and more updates

HJ Mitchell eliminated several recently added sentences about what Lohan did after she was sentenced to 90 days in jail. Each removed sentence had a citation. HJM said it was "poor sourcing." How? He also said the lawyer's career was "irrelevant." But it's interesting that someone with her money would hire an attorney with virtually no experience (I didn't even mention the law school she graduated from). He said it was "undue weight." I don't get that. It's a big deal for Lohan and interesting for a figure with her history. He also said it was "recentism cruft." As far as I know, neither of those words exists in English, but I'm going to assume he meant it was too much information about recent events, that perhaps later, in perspective, some of the statements won't be as notable. I tend to agree with that, but then the statements could be removed when they do become less important. Right now the are important enough. What do others think? I'm not averse to taking out the intermediate report of Lohan's hiring of Feder-Cohen (that's the green attorney), but at a minimum the fact that her attorney at the hearing quit and that Shapiro, a notable figure himself, was recently hired are worth mentioning. I'm hesitant to change anything because HJM is an admin (I'm just the lowly peon who added the sentences and the sources), although it certainly didn't stop him from acting (and with such apparent relish). Please comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• All I'll say for the minute is that my adminship is irrelevant. I am an administrator, but that doesn't give me any special authority and it doesn't make my opinion worth more than anyone else's, so for the purposes of this discussion, just ignore the mop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your admin comment, and I agree with it. However, my limited experience so far at Wikipedia has been that status matters (just like life). In any event, hopefully, you'll post a more substantive comment - and others will chime in - so we can move forward.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others have to say before I really form an opinion on it. I stand by removal of the content as it was, but others might feel it merits inclusion in some form or another and I'd like to hear more opinions. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As always I like to look at the best possible sources to see what they cover and then just follow them. Sources like BBC, AP, Reuters, Washington Post, NY Times, in their news section (a lot of these outlets now run various entertainment/gossip blog type subsections). In my opinion, when dealing with Lohan's legal antics and so forth, the best way to measure WP:WEIGHT is to go to these sources and see what weight they put on it. Most of these outlets covered the jail sentence, but looking at the last few days, the only really high caliber outlet I can find covering the lawyer switch is AP:

• Lindsay Lohan's defense attorney resigns from case [9]
• Lindsay Lohan hires celebrity lawyer Shapiro [10][11]

Since it was reported by AP, in my opinion we could include it, but as briefly as possible, just one or two sentences.

AP also reported on Lohan re-entering rehab, and this might be worth including with a sentence in this article too:

• Lawyer: Lohan staying at substance abuse facility[12][13] Siawase (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Siawase, do you prefer a blog from a top publication to an article from, say, MTV? For example, when I was sourcing what happened with Lohan after the hearing, I could have used the Los Angeles Times blog, as opposed to MTV, which is what I used. It's not clear to me which source is better. It would have been easy if it had been in the LA Times proper, but the online version of the LA Times now has a GREAT deal of news reported in blog format. And by the way, I put in very few sentences about all this.

My suggestion at this point is one of two options: (1) put in her first attorney leaving and Shapiro joining or (2) just put in Shapiro joining as it implies that the first attorney is gone. Either choice eliminates the intermediate step about the inexperienced Feder-Cohen.

As for rehab, a separate issue, I can easily insert that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the blog is just an opinion piece, we should avoid it, but if it's just called a blog, but it's subject to the same kind of editorial standards as the LA Times proper, I'd say it's a reliable source, since the LA Times has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for us to consider it a reliable source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That the choice is between MTV and an LA Times blog kind of says it all when it comes to weight in my opinion. Since Bbb23 didn't link to the specific blog in question it's hard to say, but the main problem with these blogs usually isn't reliability per se, they tend to fall under the usual editorial purview, but that the material they cover tend to be much more indiscrimiate, spurious and more similar to E! News or goosip rags than the material that is published in the news section proper. Siawase (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked more closely. The LA Times calls its "news blog" "L.A. Now." It says it's produced by reporters and editors from the Metro section of the Times. Therefore, it's not really that different from regular articles except that it's online and more immediate (probably less fact-checking needed because it's not in-depth). I don't think I'd call that "indiscriminate" or "spurious." It's just news as it happens like a lot of web news (CNN, for example).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't you just link to the blog post you want to use? Siawase (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, here is one that gets in most of the information (but not the part about the first attorney's departure after the hearing, which is covered slightly earlier here). I just need a consensus (among the three of us anyhow) as to the information I'm going to include (see above). Then, I'll be happy to put everything in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, why can't we just use the AP sources I linked instead of those blog posts? Siawase (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. We digressed into a discussion about the relative weight of different sources. How about I use your first source (which is Washington Post/AP) and the LA Times later source? One reason is the Times source has a quote from Shapiro as opposed to a paraphrase. A second reason is it reports on Lohan's entry into rehab, so it kills two birds with one stone. Assuming I use the Washington Post/AP source, is the publisher considered AP or the Post? Also, is HJ Mitchell on board with all this?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If Siawase is happy, I'm happy. On a technical note, that Google hosted news link (the AP story) will die quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All's fine with me really. Though I think including quotes from Shapiro would be undue weight, and I don't think convenience of two birds with one stone should take precedent over the quality of the sources used. But really, too much dithering already over what is really a minor matter. (And yeah, I included alternative AP links to avoid the google disappearing links. BTW, I noticed there is at least one already expired google/AP link in the article, didn't have time to find an alternative source yet though.) Siawase (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I updated the article, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. I condensed things, trying to keep it as short as possible for HJ Mitchell. I paraphrased Shapiro rather than quoting him for Siawase. The sources are now a mix of AP, Boston Herald, and LA Times. Thanks for all of your input.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So, after all this (per AP):
"In court, Lohan was represented by her longtime attorney, Shawn Chapman Holley, who had resigned earlier but never filed a formal motion with the court. Famed celebrity attorney Robert Shapiro said Friday that he had agreed to represent the actress, but Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Marsha Revel Revel said Tuesday that he had told her hours earlier that he would not take the case."[14]
Seems Shapiro just turned into a parenthetical footnote in the story. Siawase (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed an allusion to this from another source earlier today, but it was sketchy. Interestingly, the article you link to has apparently changed since you linked to it. It no longer has that precise quote. Instead it says: "Last week she moved into a sober living facility founded by famed celebrity attorney Robert Shapiro, who on Friday said he agreed to represent her. But by Monday afternoon Shapiro was standing before Revel, announcing he would not be handling it. That prompted widespread speculation about who would represent the actress. On Tuesday morning it was Lohan's longtime attorney, Shawn Chapman Holley, who accompanied the starlet to court and stood beside her. Holley acted like she had never left the case and said afterward she will continue to represent Lohan."

I'm inclined to now remove the intermediate steps in the article (sigh) and just leave the report on her appearance today, although I think it would be better to report to a non-Yahoo link that doesn't change. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

lol wtf at yahoo switching out the article at the same url. Google still has a very static copy of the original AP article i quoted (including the "Revel Revel" typo) so I made a webcite copy of that, just for future reference.[15][16] Forbes also has it more or less untouched[17] and it's on another part of yahoo.[18]

If we want to use the article that's on that yahoo url now, this might be a more reliably static copy:[19]

Searching for that I also found another updated AP report that had some more details.

"Holley said after the hearing that Lohan had decided she did not want Shapiro to represent her.

"She's stepped up, she's accepted responsibility," Holley said of her client. "She's scared as anyone would be, but she's as resolute and she's doing it.""[20][21]

Looking at some other top tier sources, none of them mention Shapiro: Reuters[22], BBC[23], NY Times[24] Though Reuters did mention that she "has voluntarily spent the past week in a sober living facility in Los Angeles"

But yeah, this seems to point towards excluding Shapiro and the whole lawyer switching hoopla from the article here. Siawase (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Too true. I've removed all the lawyer stuff from the article. Cleaned up the jail statements. Tidied the citations (but left them intact, whoever put them in). The entire description is now incredibly short. HJ Mitchell should be pleased. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've no objection to including that kind of thing as long as it's reliably sourced, relevant and kept in historical perspective. Once this drama has died down, I think we need to look at pruning the post-2008 stuff- it takes up as much room as the entire rest of her life combined and she's hardly been active! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Relationships

Why aren't any of the relationships she's had mentioned in the Other work and personal life section? Jim Michael (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Because her relationships are integrated in the chronological biography above that. I'm not sure why there even is a personal life section, I think all that material could be integrated into the chronology. Siawase (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be incorporated into the chronology. I've been meaning to work on that for a while, but if you want to have a go Siawase, be my guest! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I did an attempt at consolidating the material that was in the "Other work and personal life" section into the main chronology. Most of it was fairly easy to fit in the timeline, but two sections were a bit problematic, as they had related material spanning a several years. Her appearances on toplists in men's magazines at varioues times, I moved to 2008 next to the bulk of the material regarding her modelling around that time. I think this brings some cohesive context at least. For the political material, I switched the order within the section, so it starts with the 2008 text, and then mentions the earlier briefer material as background to that. The only thing I outright removed was a mention of the 2007 SCRAM bracelet, as that is already covered in the main chronology.

Anyway, I hope this makes for a bit more cohesive structure, and makes material easier to find for readers. Siawase (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay guest apperance

she guest stars in a tv show...i got the source from tmz heres the link http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/22/lindsay-lohan-late-double-exposure-photo-shoot-tardy/ the show is called decent exposure and will air on june 22..so we should put that on her list of tv shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.235.174 (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me have a look, thanks! I added a paragraph about Inferno, by the way! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence for now and we;ll see what comes of it over the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why haven't they added anything from her Documentary. It deserves more than a small mention, maybe even have it listed. "Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey" it was transmitted in the BBC3. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1666322/ Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.143.19 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's mentioned in there. Let me have a look. I'll certainly add it to her filmography. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK then I'l wait for it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.216.132 (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you haven't added Lindsay's Indian Documentary to her filmography section. Just wanted to clear that one out, keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.140.210 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Occupation Songwriter

On March 22, 2010, an editor added songwriter as occupation for Lohan. He did it without explanation. No one complained (noticed?). Much more recently, another editor removed the occupation, also without explanation. I looked around and found that Lohan had written some of the songs she sang on published albums. So, I reverted the change putting songwriter back in. Along comes yet another editor reverting my change, saying her songwriting isn't "significant enough." I tried, without success, to find some WP policy, or even discussion, of how much one has to do to warrant an occupational designation. Now, in the real world (so different from WP), if someone writes a song and it is published and performed, to me that makes that person a songwriter, particularly if she self-identifies as a songwriter. Trying to draw a line on WP as to how many songs Lohan has to write before being labeled a songwriter seems like an inherently fruitless and subjective exercise. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? I've left the last reversion in place pending, hopefully, some discussion here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:COMPOSER, one criterion for notability as a composer is: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Lohan co-wrote Confessions of a Broken Heart (Daughter to Father), which charted in the Billboard Hot 100. That is sufficient. I have restored the designation as songwriter. It might be inappropriate to have a separate article on her as a songwriter, but for a mention in an infobox or the article, that's perfectly acceptable. If Paul McCartney can be credited as an "artist" (visual arts), Lohan can be considered a songwriter. Cresix (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the policy. Always nice when there is one - and it's reasonably clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To mention it in an article may be appropriate, but it's self-evident that not everything an individual does is an occupation. The fact that someone may be notable for doing something does not make it their occupation; otherwise "murderer" should be added to the Phil Spector infobox, and "john" to Hugh Grant's. Even jobs people held for significant periods of time aren't typically listed in infoboxes as their occupation if it doesn't make a significant contribution to their notability; no "carpenter" in the Harrison Ford infobox; no "attorney" for Tony LaRussa or John Grisham, no "baseball player" for Michael Jordan. If her jail time ends up with her on a crew picking up roadside trash, should we add "sanitation worker" to the infobox? It's a measure of just how insignificant her songwriting is that although enthusiasts insist on including it in the lede and infobox, it doesn't appear to ever have been discussed in the body of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of your examples are irrelevant (murder, john, sanitation worker) and certainly not helpful to this discussion. As for your other less sarcastic examples, it is true that many people do many different things in their lives, but not everything is current. Just because Ford worked as a carpenter at one time in his life doesn't mean that he would want his occupation to be carpenter (some of these judgments have to do with self-identity). I don't know whether Grisham practices still or if he even keeps his license active, but, again, part of it would depend on whether he would want to be labeled as an attorney. If he in fact does still practice, then he should have attorney listed as one of his occupations. Moving to Lohan, she is well-known as an actor and a singer. Some of the songs she's sung have either been partly or wholly written by her. Classifying her as a sing-songwriter doesn't seem like much of a stretch. I agree somewhat with your statement that there's nothing in the body of the article about her songwriting. You should add some. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing my points as irrelevant or sarcastic is not constructive and certainly not helpful, since you use those labels to avoid the central point that by no stretch of the imagination is songwriter an "occupation" Lohan has engaged in, in any conventional meaning of the word. Not every activity a person has performed is their occupation, and Lohan's hiring professional songwriters to work up her amateur efforts into releasable tracks isn't sufficient to establish songwriter as an occupation, any more than celebrities like Sandra Bullock or Bob Dylan, who've given sketches and concepts to builders for their homes, should have "architect" listed among their occupations. And "singer" shouldn't be added to Terry Bradshaw's occupations, either [25]. The world is filled with celebrity vanity projects, which are quite different from occupations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has "dismissed" your points. You're the one who made them sarcastic, which also was not helpful. Please don't personalize this matter; it's a content dispute. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion does not mean your comments have been "dismissed". I think all of us have taken your comments into consideration, but we also considered WP:COMPOSER. Look, it may be your opinion that Lohan is not a songwriter, and that's fine. I'm not fond of her music myself. But she meets Wikipedia's criteria as a songwriter, so it can be included in the article, whether we call her "singer-songwriter" or "singer and songwriter". On top of that, there clearly is no consensus here to remove that designation. As I said below, no one is trying to say she's the next Beethoven. Again, let's be reasonable. Cresix (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're still dismissing the central point, and waving your hands around instead. "Occupation" does not encompass every activity a person has engaged in, notable or not; and the fact that Lohan was cowritten a handful of songs does not make it an occupation she has engaged in. You still cite no policy, no guideline, no practice of relevance here. And reductio ad absurdum isn't sarcasm; your argument here leads to absurd results of the kind I describe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read. WP:COMPOSER applies quite well, and it has been mentioned several times in this discussion. Cresix (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that's approaching the uncivil. Nothing in WP:COMPOSER, as is evident to any reader, indicates that anyone who meets any of the notability guidelines there is engaged in the occupation of composer. The composers of "Happy Birthday" are notable for composing the song, but they were schoolteachers by occupation, and an isolated success did not change that. Not everyone who commits a crime is by occupation a career criminal, even if their crime is notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you consider my asking you to notice mention of a guidelines in this discussion to be "uncivil", I encourage you to report me at WP:ANI. Cresix (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that Lohan has written songs should be mentioned somewhere in the article, maybe in conjunction with the album(s) she has written for. I'm neutral as of now as to whether it should be mentioned in the lead and/or infobox, but I think sourcing and adding it to the article prose might clarify that matter somewhat. I do object to her being labelled a singer-songwriter, since that expression has specific connotations that don't apply to Lohan. If anything it should be "singer and songwriter". Siawase (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added two lines for each of her albums about the number of songs she cowrote on each. I didn't cite any source because the tracks are listed on each album's WP article. Others may add more info if they think it's helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the sarcastic descriptions of "murderer" and "john" do not qualify them as "occupations". And if Grisham has a current law license that easily could be added as one of his occupations. Lohan co-wrote a notable song. That's all we need to include it in the article. No one is saying the article should describe her as the next Beethoven. Let's be reasonable. Cresix (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable, and let's be rational. "Occupation" does not mean, and has never meant, any activity a person has engaged in. John McCain has appeared in more sketches on SNL than Lohan has songwriting credits, but no one would rationally list "comedian" or "actor" among his occupations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We are being quite rationale, and we have opinions, just as you do. Wikipedia also has guidelines, one of which applies very well to this situation. Almost every musician (and I hope you don't deny that she considers herself a musician) who writes music considers him/herself a songwriter. That doesn't mean they're good at it, or successful at it, or that anyone likes the songs they wrote. But in Lohan's case, she co-wrote a notable song, and that's good enough for Wikipedia. I think what is irrational is to think that John McCain would even remotely consider himself a comedian or an actor. I think we've beaten this dead horse enough, so unless a consensus develops to remove "songwriter" from the article, I suggest that we all move on to more important matters. Thanks to all. Cresix (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a completely invalid straw man. No one has suggested removing all mentions of her songwriting from the article. But it's not, by any rational use of the term, an occupation she has engaged in, and listing it as one of Lohan's isn't consistent with existing practice or with the plain meaning of the word. I've been paid from time to time for (ghost) writing commentaries that ended up on newspaper OpEd pages, once in the NYTimes, but that doesn't man my occupations include "journalist" or "author." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't consider yourself a journalist, that's fine. But I'm done here. Thanks for your comments. Cresix (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, then per WP:BURDEN, there's a disputed claim, the numbers of users who favor and oppose it are roughly equal (2 opposed, 3 in favor), there's an unresolved issue (the meaning of "occupation"), so the claim should be removed until a genuine consensus to include it is reached. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also a guideline on Wikipedia that applies here. If a consensus develops to remove "songwriter" I'm fine with that. But until then, the guidleline applies. Now, unless a consensus develops to remove "songwriter", I'm done here. Cresix (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Hullaballoo, WP:Burden doesn't really apply because it involves the removal of material that is unsourced. Even you aren't challenging the fact that Lohan written songs. However, if you believe the issue has been resolved unfairly, whether it be for what you perceive as lack of consensus or for any other reason, you can always escalate the issue. You could use WP:EAR or any other WP forum you believe is appropriate for such a dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's an unsourced claim. Show me a reference that identifies songwriter as an occupation Lohan has engaged in. Your refusal to address this point, where your position departs widely from established Wikipedia practice, continues. And, by its express terms, WP:BURDEN applies to content disputes generally. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You demanded a source by editing the article, and Cresix responded with a couple of sources. I added a third. However, I think that once this blows over, we should remove the sources. As I said earlier, the fact she has written songs is not disputed. It is not necessary to source it any more than it would be necessary to source the fact that she is an actor. The only real issue was whether her songwriting merited the label songwriter as an occupation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

None of those sources are relevant; none even remotely suggest she is a songwriter by occupation. Once again, you ignore the point that not every activity a person engages in is an occupation. The tag removal was plain disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you consider adding reliable sources to the article "disruptive", please report it at WP:AVI. Cresix (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the Infobox and the article lead to accommodate Siawase's comment about singer-songwriter, with which I agree. I also changed the order of the occupations in the lead and called her a former model because I don't think she's done any modeling since she was a child.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the singer-songwriter fix, but she was working as a professional model as late as last year (see the 2008–2009 section, the Fornarina campaign) so I think "former" is a bit premature. Siawase (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, I've removed the word former. I had done a find on the word "model," and it didn't show up because the word (or its variants) wasn't used. So much for trying to save time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of asides. Grisham's law license in Mississippi is inactive. I don't know whether he's licensed in any other state. There are reports (not well sourced) on the web that say Lohan has been spending part of her time songwriting while in jail.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner/Detainee Categories

An editor removed Lohan from the categories of prisoner/detainee, American and Californian. For me, this raises two issues. First, is the category restricted to current prisoners? The category descriptions don't illuminate this issue, and a glance at some of the people categorized this way shows that many are no longer prisoners. Of course, the latter could simply be neglect. Any WP practice on this first issue?

The second issue is the meaning of detainee. Lohan was moved from jail to court-ordered rehab. Is she not then still a detainee even if she is no longer incarcerated? She certainly isn't in rehab voluntarily.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one who finds either issue interesting. ;-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was hoping someone else would have some input since this seems pretty thorny. Since the categories are in present tense, I think it's just neglect that former incarcerated people are still in there. As for the second issue, I have no clue, but I'm leaning towards her being left out of the categories. Being in court-ordered rehab just isn't the same as being detained. Siawase (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the categories are in any tense. However, I, too, feel that they should probably only include people who are presently incarcerated or detained. Perhaps the category titles should be made clearer, or perhaps the category descriptions/definitions should say something. I'm not sure where to bring up such a suggestion, but I'm willing to do it if pointed in the right direction. As for detainees, the word, in my view, is a legal one and should be governed by its legal meaning(s). For example, people who are in jail awaiting trial are called pre-trial detainees, as opposed to people who have been convicted who are normally referred to as prisoners. At the moment, Lohan certainly doesn't fit into the category of a pre-trial detainee. However, there is also a concept of a civil detainee. It generally refers to people who are committed to institutions (most often hospitals) in a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one. That's closer to Lohan's circumstances, except that she has been involuntarily committed to a hospital-like setting, but in a criminal proceeding. Given that she's not free to leave, I would think she would properly be classified as a detainee, absent some clearer definition in the category itself. My guess is the category was intended to cover pre-trial detainees and convicts, not defendants who are ordered to a rehab facility, even though those people are clearly "detained." Again, perhaps it would be best to make this clearer in the category description.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would say that being in a court-ordered rehab isn't detention. She's confined to a specific location and subject to legal penalty if she leaves it.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my view is she is detained. I just am not sure what the category was intended to cover. I've brought up both issues at Wikipedia Talk:Category names#Prisoners_and_Detainees_Questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to Siawase, hence the indent level.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm wildly unsure, but since this is a BLP I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and find some reliable source or legal expert that spells out that court ordered rehab does indeed fall under "detained". But to be clear, since I am so unsure, if either of you were to re-add the categories I wouldn't revert. Just offering my loose opinion, and hopefully awaiting more input. Siawase (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I recently changed the picture from a picture from 2007, to a more up-to-date picture, and a better representation of what Lindsay Lohan, being a living person actually looks like. Perhaps I did not properly cite it, please help! Lol. Also, I must say I think this picture looks really great! Thanks for any help you can give me!--mpo90 (talk)

Please see the WP:NFCC criteria. You cannot just slap that non-free image license on any image. Thanks. Nymf _hideliho! 15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok! I apologize, thanks for the input!--Mpo90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

How do I go about finding a new picture? Because this picture is a little outdated.(talk) --Mpo90 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find an image that you like, your best bet is probably to try and obtain permission by emailing the author/copyright holder, asking if you can post it under a free license at Wikipedia. See this link for information on how you would do that. Cheers. Nymf _hideliho! 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks so much for the help! --Mpo90 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing The Other Side

I removed the mention of Lohan first being cast and then no longer participating in The Other Side. There are no real reliable sources on what exactly happened (all sources claiming she was fired reference back to TMZ.) Us magazine also had a conflicting opinion: (Another source insists to UsMagazine.com that the film's failure to get financing had "nothing to do with Lindsay. It was because it was an unknown director. All the major stars in this film dropped out.")[26] Per previous discussion [27] there is no reason to include parts that fall through, unless there are (well sourced) compelling reasons to do so. Siawase (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Labor Pains

Why this movie is listed under TV category? In many countries it was released in the theatres. Probably its worth to move it to the movie category and make a note that in US, UK, etc. it was a "direct to DVD" title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tables - Sortable v. Unsortable

I just reverted two good faith changes to the Filmography section because the editor added rowspan to a sortable table. The film table is now okay, although the substantive addition was lost in the reversion. The television table was apparently changed before (I didn't research when) to add rowspan to a sortable table, so it really needs to be fixed. More important (at least to me) is the issue of whether a filmography table should be sortable or not. I've noticed that a lot of editors seem to prefer sortable tables, but I couldn't find any guideline on the issue. Personally, I think the nonsortable tables using rowspan look better, and I don't really care much about sorting the columns, but my personal preference shouldn't control how this issue is handled. Maybe editors with more history on this issue could comment?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

VMA's

she made a brief appearance at the 2010 MTV VMA's she did a short skit with Chelsea Handler, maybe it should be noted? Iv seen other celebrities pages noting their presence at the VMA's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.58.160 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. My content was lost, and I can't be arsed adding it again. Ask on my Talk page if you really think it matters. Rodhullandemu 22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Failed drug test

TMZ is reporting she failed a drug test last week for cocaine. http://www.tmz.com/person/lindsay-lohan/ Should this be included? Krazymike (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Although they broke Michael Jackson's death, which might have been pure luck, they miss more often they hit, so for a WP:BLP, I'd say no. If this happened, it will hit the mainstream sources soon enough, and we can afford to wait. Rodhullandemu 22:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lohan already issued a denial[28] so now we definitely need to wait for sturdier sourcing. Siawase (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping up with the minute-by-minute reporting, per this LA Times article (which appears to be one of the more reliable sources so far): "the investigation is ongoing and said no official determination has been made that she did take illicit drugs."[29] Siawase (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to wait until there is concrete information, if any; unsourced speculation and rumour don't belong in an encyclopedia any more than would be reported in Wikinews. And that's without WP:BLP. Rodhullandemu 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AP, which is generally considered a highly reliable source, have confirmed with a source of their own. But their source is anonymous and nothing is official yet.[30] Reuters, who are also considered a good source, published an article, but they don't appear to have any independent sourcing, and are just rehashing previous reporting from TMZ etc.[31] But I guess it lends some WP:WEIGHT to the matter. Siawase (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Any added weight is minimal. I think we should wait (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Lohan has now confirmed (on twitter...) that she failed a test, and this was reported by CNN and AP, I went ahead and added a small blurb to the article. Siawase (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

She's in jail right now. Great job locking this article. You're a super Wiki expert! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.206.226 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, her jailing has been included in the article. In the future when suggesting additions, you may want to consider including links to reliable sources so other editors can easier verify the material. This article was semi-protected by an admin because of excessive vandalism, which since this is a biography of a living person can have real life consequences. It has nothing to do with "expert" status, but is a technical protection. It unfortunately means that sometimes it may take a few minutes longer for the article to be updated. But if you want to gain access to directly edit this article, register an account, wait four days and make 10 edits. This will give you autoconfirmed status and access to edit this and other semi-protected articles. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

E-trade lawsuit dropped

Lohan dropped her lawsuit against E-trade.[32] I'm leaning towards removing the whole matter from the article, since, specially with the withdrawal of the suit, it seems like a minor footnote in her life and career. Any opinions? Siawase (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The AP article has this strange comment in it: "An E-Trade Financial Corp. spokeswoman says the case's end marks a 'business decision' for the firm. She won't discuss the terms." How can Lohan's withdrawal constitute a decision by the defendant? The terms of what? Sounds like a settlement rather than a straight voluntary dismissal. If the parties settled - even if the terms are confidential - I would be in favor of reporting the suit and the settlement. If, on the other hand, she just dropped it and got nothing, then I agree we should probably just remove it from the article. Maybe we should find out more before we make a decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nicely spotted, though it seems they're reluctant to even make the existence of any settlement public, making it difficult to cover here in a clear manner. Even TMZ didn't come up with any specific numbers. Not a lot of WP:RS on this (yet?) but the two I found didn't have more details (aside what they gleaned from TMZ.) Hollywood Reporter does say she settled, but again, referring to TMZ for that.[33][34] Siawase (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to wait a bit to see if more information comes out. As far as I can tell, no one can keep quiet for very long in Hollywood (or NYC).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

perezhilton.com stated that she in fact won the case. but not for the 100 million she wanted im assuming. 204.112.199.197 (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this article as a source for the settlement of the suit? Not the most auspicious source, but it's reasonably well-written AND makes some sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perez Hilton can't really be considered WP:RS (and how could she have "won" the case when it never went to court?) The thecelebritycafe.com article appears to ultimately be based on earlier NY Daily News and NY Post articles, neither of which I'd be super comfortable using, particularly regarding legal matters. Looking again though, it appears AP published a more detailed article updating on the first one later on the 21st that makes it clear that they "reached a settlement" and that "the terms of the agreement are confidential."[35][36] Siawase (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be the AP and the celebrity cafe articles. The AP article will satisfy your feelings about reliable sources, and the other article has more detail, including the name of Lohan's lawyer, not just the name of E-Trade's lawyer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should we include the names of any lawyers? In my opinion there's still barely enough weight to include even the bare essentials about this lawsuit. Siawase (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we include the names of any lawyer in the article. I just like the fact that the celebrity source has both names for those readers who actually read the sources. As for the article, it just needs a short sentence that a settlement was reached, the terms of which are confidential, nothing more. I've added the sentence and the two sources, AP source first. See if it looks okay to you, particularly the way the AP source is done (I cloned the way it was done in another part of the article). For some odd reason, I can't see the archived article with Firefox - I have to do it with IE.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Thanks for keeping it brief. Google does some hook-in with googlemaps for their hosted news that doesn't seem to archive properly. Maybe that's what's causing it to not load for you? It throws some error message in Firefox for me, but it does load. Siawase (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we've resolved the article issue. For me, Firefox loads the banner at the top of the page, but nothing else. I, too, get an error message with IE, but I can see the article. I like FF, but it has some funny quirks, particularly with respect to addons and profiles, so it may be that some addon I have or something in my profile is causing the behavior. It's a pain to troubleshoot, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)