Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Parts Lohan never got

Can we get some discussion going on this instead of reverting and editing back and forth? Like I mentioned above, I think only parts she didn't get where there is some relevant context should be included. IE, the part she didn't get because she had to go to rehab, that is relevant and interesting, but a part she didn't get because she was "busy" or just "scheduling conflicts" is not interesting. Nor is it prudent to imply that all instances where Lohan didn't get a part is part of a pattern of career interruption unless there are reliable sources to assert as much. Siawase (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all i dont think those parts should be removed just because you think theyre "not interesting"........and all the sources are reliable........anyway.....i didnt think its fair to remove some and keep some....either you remove all of them, or keep all of them......

Anywhere But Home (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! Now we can get a dialogue started and hopefully reach consensus. When I say interesting, I mean in an encyclopedic way, that is, they say something about Lohan and her career. If she has to pass on a part because she's in rehab, this says something specific about her. But all actors have passed on parts because they were busy elsewhere, this is not something unique to Lohan, and doesn't say anything much about the way her career is going, do you see the difference? This is why I don't think all instances can be treated the same.

And if I may ask, how do you define "reliable source"? Have you read the WP:Reliable sources guideline? Siawase (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "either you remove all of them, or keep all of them". To say that something is "not fair" is quite vague: Not fair to the article, or not fair to the editor who wishes to include or remove a role? Our focus should be on making the article encyclopedic, not being "fair". I believe that many of the roles should not be mentioned, but to blindly say "remove them all" ignores potentially notable exceptions. And the exceptions can be discussed here if there is disagreement. Ward3001 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Ward here. If we were to list every role every actor failed to get we'd crash the Internet. Selected roles with good context are acceptable, though probably worth discussing first here. And reliable sources are fundamental. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 16:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources Anywhere But Home cited for the "Poor Things" dropout linked back to Variety (magazine) [1] and The Hollywood Reporter [2], both of which should be reliable sources and mention that the shooting would likely be postponed due to Lohan entering rehab, and then that she had dropped out.

Regarding "A Woman of No Importance" (and I think I saw this in the edit queue earlier, but I don't know what source was used then?), Lohan's publicist made some vague statements to People magazine about Lohan dropping out to "focus on getting better." [3], which MSNBC connects to her going into rehab. [4]. I think combined this should be strong enough sourcing to go into the article, but I'm not 100% on how we should word it.

MSNBC also mentions Lohan dropping out of "The Edge Of Love" due to salary conflict, this to me does not sound like something of enough weight to include in the article.

I did not see any other reliable source references or conspicuous circumstances with the other dropouts, and I would suggest that unless someone can find them, the other parts should be removed from the article. Siawase (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

so, which ones are going to be kept..?........A woman of no importance and poor things.........??........what about ye olde times and manson girls??

Anywhere But Home (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, if you can find reliable sources that say these were indeed career interruptions of some kind, then they should be included. But if the only reasons stated for her not doing the part are neutral, like "busy" or "scheduling conflicts", which are no reflection on the state of her career, then they should not be included.

And yes, the only ones where I could find circumstances that would warrant inclusion were "A Woman of No Importance" and "Poor Things", but other editors might find otherwise. Siawase (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Did lohan drop out of poor things or did they drop her out........cause sources like this one say that the movie droped her.....but other sources say she droped out....which is the truth...cause i dont know which one to put....

Anywhere But Home (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anywhere But Home: thanks for adding some the good sources. I have done some more research and I think I've got some idea about all the parts now.
Ye Olde Times, per reliable sources, nothing but scheduling issues.[5]
Manson Girls, again, scheduling issues.[6] "She is not able to do the film as she has signed on to the film, Labour Pains, and the TV show, Ugly Betty, and the dates conflict," Sloane said in an email. "She was interested in Manson if her schedule permitted."[7]
So I'm going ahead and removing those two parts from the article. The fact that Lohan passed on some part because she was busy elsewhere just does not carry enough WP:WEIGHT to be included.
The Edge Of Love does seem to have circumstances that warrant inclusion, but it'll need to be worded carefully. Google search [8] found a mention of "insurance reasons" from BBC[9] and "Lindsay Lohan, dropped out weeks before filming" from the telegraph.[10]
...And speaking of WP:WEIGHT, the amount of space and detail the article currently goes into regarding these parts Lohan never got is way out of proportion. In some cases it's about ten times more than the material about movies she did do. I definitely think the dropout material should be trimmed down a lot and summarized. And in reply to Anywhere But Home's concern above over who dropped whom, I think the text should probably be short enough that such details wouldn't be inclued. Siawase (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and summarized all the dropouts, added the most reliable sources found, and put the whole shebang in chronological order. It almost makes sense now. Each instance lines up quite neatly with the rehab stints and arrests we have lined up in the personal life section. The wording is still a bit rough and it could do with some more elegant copy edit (not my strong suit really.) For reference, I came across this May 2007 NY Times article [11] that details some of her career interruptions. It would possibly be useful for cleaning up the segment starting with "Entertainment Weekly quoted the head of a major film studio...", which looks to have some old WP:CRYSTAL type material. Siawase (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Siawase, you said that "the text should probably be short enough that such details wouldn't be inclued" ~~ about who droped who in poor things.......but the way its written now-- but ultimatley she did not keep the part -- it makes it sound like she droped out.......i think it should be re-phrased to this 'but ultimatley she was out of the project' or 'but ultimatley the part was not kept for her'.............that way its not saying who droped who......

Anywhere But Home (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New section on third album

Anywhere But Home keeps making this edit, with which I strongly disagree because I don't think there's any evidence that this album will ever exist. Comments?—Kww(talk) 13:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the album release is in limbo, and the tentative past tense, "were confirmed to be originally scheduled," seems much more accurate. Siawase (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That edit needs to stay out of the article for now, and if Anywhere But Home persists without some solid sourcing there needs to be an ANI report. Ward3001 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, keep it that way....but re-phrase it......cause "Tracks that were confirmed to be originally scheduled were......" just doesnt make sense.....Anywhere But Home (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me, and English is my native language. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite say that, but I learned it so long ago I forgot the one I spoke before then.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored back after Anywhere But Home changed it again. If you want different wording, ABH, float it by here and get agreement. This is getting annoying and frustrating.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I Know Who Killed me era

should it be mentioned that production got halted on "I Know Who Killed Me" when lohan checked into rehab [12]  ?

Anywhere But Home (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice find, and thanks for checking on the talk page before adding. I think it would be good to include a mention in the article, just a short note. The article is starting to get awfully heavy on detailing her spiralling downwards. (something I too have contributed to, natch. Some of this material should probably be summarized down even further in the future.)

We already have a source mentioning that in the article already, so I went ahead and did a bold update to mention the production stop. diff[13] I hope no one minds. Siawase (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

After triple checking, the source[14] might perhaps not support the wording I used (it seems people's summary bio grossely overstated their original article.) I gotta go now, so if someone else wants to revert or change the wording, go ahead. Either way, I'll look it over again later. Siawase (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

i added this source..... Anywhere But Home (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

i found more sources....this one and this one and this one and this one

the sources say that lohan was allowed to film i know who killed me during her stay at the rehab center....

Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my erroneous wording. I guess it goes to show the limits of People magazine as a source. I still think the appendicitis and subsequent production break should be included. AP [15] mentioned it (not sure we need to use the AP source in the article, but just to confirm some weight of the matter.) Siawase (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

i dont get what you mean......the part about lohan removing her appendix and the subsequent production break is already included in the article.....

Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just confirming that I still hold the same opinion, even though the sourcing and apparent circumstances changed. Siawase (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence structure

Sorry to bring up such a trivial matter, but Anywhere But Home has decided to edit war on a matter of sentence structure. ABH repeatedly reverts to passive voice: "Lohan was then slated to appear in a movie version of Poor Things; following her May 2007 DUI arrest producers behind the movie initially announced their support—while Lohan once again entered rehab — but ultimately the part was not kept for her" (italics added). It's much better to use active voice in English, thus: "Lohan was then slated to appear in a movie version of Poor Things; following her May 2007 DUI arrest producers behind the movie initially announced their support—while Lohan once again entered rehab — but ultimately she did not keep the part". I would like some support for my version, or any other suggestions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i changed it cause some sources say she droped out and some say they droped her.....so, when you put 'she did not keep the part', its like your saying she droped out......but when you put 'the part was not kept for her' its not revealing who droped who..........

Anywhere But Home (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say any such thing, ABH. It says she did not keep the part. And "the part was not kept" is very bad style. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this version is clearer and more polished stylistically. I think its relatively neutral to say she "lost the part", no?

Lohan was then cast in the film adaptation of Poor Things. She ultimately lost the part following her May 2007 DUI arrest, although the film's producers voiced support for her decision to enter rehab.--Agnaramasi (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I will change it. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agnaramasi already fixed. That makes it much better. Thanks. Now ABH, please don't edit war. Please discuss. Ward3001 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is much more elegant, but perhaps slightly inaccurate. The producers actually went further than that. They were completely prepared to go ahead and shoot the movie with Lohan even after she entered rehab. I think according to one source they went so far as to rehearse scenes inside the rehab. Then we basically have no sources until bam, someone else has the part. I was trying to capture this vagueness in the article text, but I guess I didn't do a very good job, and I think this is part of why it ended up so muddled. I don't think the distinction is important enough enough to spend a lot of time back-and-forthing over though, and I'm basically fine with either version (the one prior to ABH trying to fix it or Agnaramasi's just above.) Siawase (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Siawese. I agree that the events are vague, but I think we should leave it like it is. The sentence structure is well done. I don't think the sentence suggests anything that we are not sure of. Ward3001 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this, then?

Ultimately she lost, or perhaps withdrew from, the part following her May 2007 DUI arrest, although the film's producers voiced support for her decision to once again enter rehab.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Either of Agnaramasi's versions are fine as far as I'm concerned, and I have to agree with Ward3001 that the wording isn't implying anything unsourced or undue.

I think one of the things that attempting to sort out that section made clear to me is that during most of 2007, due to drug/health issues, Lohan seems to have been unable to work, which is why I suggested above that the wording sidestep the issue of who's "decision" it was. The producers tried to bend over backwards to accomodate her, she (likely) tried to do the work, but it just wasn't happening. I'd need to go back to the sources, and see if any of this would even be supported, before attempting to express it more clearly though. But I don't have time to do that properly, and I don't want to make another mess rushing it like I did with the I Know Who Killed Me break above. So, you know, carry on. Given how complicated the situation was and the sourcing we have, I think we have done a fine job of summarizing it. It ain't perfect, but it works.

BTW, I also want to thank Agnaramasi for stepping in and cutting through the goardian knot, so to speak. I just don't have any real constructive suggestions. Staring too closely at sources has made me a bit too hung up on details I think. Siawase (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things. As it stands, the claim is verifiable and NPOV: she necessarily either herself withdrew from the role or was dropped by the producers, but the article does not endorse either account of events. Second, perhaps the best way of dealing with this matter is to conclude it isn't even notable for the purposes of WP.--Agnaramasi (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, per discussion above, the weight of these matters is derived from them constituting clear career interruptions, opportunities missed because she had to go to rehab. The way the poor things segment is written now, where we pull final confirmation that the part went to someone else from a completely unrelated source, makes it edge close to WP:SYNTH. I did find one source that expresses the connection more clearly ("Producers may have been asking themselves that question last week when they reportedly pulled Lohan out of "Poor Things," an independent film she was scheduled to begin shooting after her stint in rehab."[16]) but I'm not sure how much that clarifies matters. But in the end, I do think that this was indeed an opportunity missed due to rehab, and that the sourcing we have is "good enough" to establish that. And with that, in my eyes, weight/notability is established. The article is better with this sentence included than left out. Siawase (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I re-phrased it a bit....i think its better now......and they droped her..cause she wanted them to postpone filming after she entered rehab, and they agreed[17], but eventually they decided to drop her out[18].......

Anywhere But Home (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

....................................................................................................................

Lohan was then cast in the film version of Poor Things.She ultimately lost, or perhaps withdrew from, the part following her May 2007 DUI arrest and subsequent return to rehab, although the film's producers agreed to postpone production and voiced support.

.....................................................................................................................

who agrees that this version is better and should be in the article instead of the current version.

Anywhere But Home (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the extra information about the film really necessary in this article? What's wrong with the more concise status quo version?--Agnaramasi (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this change. The current version is very clear and quite adequate. Please do not change without a change in consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation

Another minor point, but would someone take a look at the punctuation of the subheaders under "Acting career" and fix as needed. I'm staying away from editing this article for a bit. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone over the article several times with various search algorithms and fixed all the instances I could find where there was no space after the punctuation (or references where those were at the end of a sentence.) There might be more that can only be found with a manual reading though, so I'm not marking this as resolved yet. (BTW, the lack of spaces wasn't just in the acting career section, but pretty much all over) Siawase (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

I think the Prairie Home Companion image does not fall under fair use, so I'm opening this discussion. Nothing in the article or image caption justifies use of that non-free image. The image does not illustrate her career moving "in a less comedic direction" in the least. The article already decribes that point. IMHO, this is a contrived excuse to use a non-free image in an article that already contains two free images, but I'll let others decide if the image should be removed. Ward3001 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ward3001's argument concerning the status of this image, and have reverted Anywhere But Home's edit. Additional images do not add anything to the article. I would also like to strongly caution Anywhere But Home to discontinue edit warring on this issue.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not an edit war. So far as I know, the only person that removed the Prairie Home Companion image is ABH himself, and he can't edit war with himself. Well, I guess he could, but it seems like a harmless pastime in small enough doses.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed this image was one of the images for which ABH was blocked for repeatedly adding.--Agnaramasi (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

im gonna have to disagree with you....the image does illustrate "her carrer moving in a less comedic direction" very clearly.....and if you read Wikipedia:non-free content it states

Acceptable use:

Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

Anywhere But Home (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This question is directed at any editor. Specifically, how does the image (not the words) illustrate "her career moving in a less comedic direction"? As best I can see, it doesn't show anything about her career other than the fact that she's in the film. If it's because the image is not funny ("less comedic"), or because Meryl Streep appears upset, it would be easy to find images in any of her films that are not funny, or images in other Lohan films in which people seem upset. Ward3001 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to see the critical commentary about the film, supposedly illustrated by the screencap, anywhere in the text of the article itself. You can't justify including the image as an illustration of critical commentary which does not exist and is neither notable nor verifiable.--Agnaramasi (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Soundtracks

The section is not restricted to movie soundtracks, but That's So Raven, a soundtrack for a TV series, has been removed repeatedly. I would like opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any general restrictions about movie soundtracks vs. TV soundtracks. If it was released as an album, I don't see why we would care. Aren't there even some video-game soundtracks these days?—Kww(talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at some singer/actor articles that are rated good or featured, it seems soundtracks aren't listed at all in the main articles, not even those soundtracks that feature the artist exclusively.[19][20][21][22] I don't know if there is explicit consensus about this spelled out somewhere, but looking around this seems to be de-facto standard. I don't know if there's compelling reason to do differently here. Siawase (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no compelling reason has come up, I decided to be WP:BOLD and removed the soundtrack section. I double checked and everything that was listed here is already at Lindsay Lohan discography#Soundtracks, with more detail even. A link to the main discography article is prominently displayed in the section here, so it's not like the soundtrack information will be hard to find for those who wish to access it. Siawase (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mugshot

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a consensus on this page not to include her mugshot in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that discussion as actually having reached a consensus. It isn't a big deal to me one way or the other, but I do think it's one of the most accurate pictures we have of her, since it is sans flattering lighting and makeup.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is no clear consensus yet. I personally think the mugshot serves no purpose and would like to see it removed (I feel this way about any celebrity mugshot on Wikipedia). I think the weight of the opinions is against including the image, although I certainly would like for others to give their opinions here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the article, it's not like its completely awash with pictures anyway plus it wouldn't be distracting from the mass block of text that is there anyway. We have a random picture from 2002 plonked nonchantly in the music section because it happened to be taken the same year she signed a deal, arguably a mugshot holds more significance and relevance. On another note the article probably does need a picture of LL in her younger years. --Uksam88 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see this discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Mug_shots. I never got around to bringing up this argument to the full community, but I'd love to see policy change for BLPs to include restrictions on mug shots. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

These words in the article match the source word for word: "Her original daylong sentence was reduced because she met criteria that took into account overcrowding at the lockup and the fact that her crime was nonviolent". Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation problem with legitimate direct quote. Fixed.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

You're going to remove the LGBT categories, wow, okay then. Because that's totally something you have to announce, right..I get it. Because Lindsay has to say "I am a member of the LGBT community" before she is, just like white people have to say they're white. She's something in the LGBT spectrum; I don't see the issue here. She's dating a woman, and acknowledges it..isn't that what being in LGBT is? Some degree of a sexuality? Because, wow, it is, silly me. And I know about the above conversation, but I'm adding this here. Put the LGBT categories back. 71.59.189.46 (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, she came out by going public about her relationship with Ronson. BLP guidelines mean that closeted living people are not put into LGBT cats, but Lohan is open about her current lesbian relationship. Hence she is eligible for at least one LGBT cat. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, (and this is only my point of view, not looking to start an argument or anything) is it entirely appropriate to add the category when she explicitly states that she doesn't want to label herself? I mean, I thought that "self-identification" was a big factor with how people are described here, n'est-ce pas? For example (perhaps not the best example), Barack Obama is referred to as 'black' in spite of being mixed-race because he considers that part of his personal identity, right? Similarly, Matt Rice and Thomas Beatie are both referred to as though they were male(over here, if you're interested), in spite of having been born women (and getting pregnant, and, while doing so, being genetically, physiologically, and hormonally women).

Anyways, food for thought. Considering how much influence 'self-identity' tends to sway here, it seems a bit inappropriate to categorize someone as LBGT, based solely on a quote where they were explicitly stating that they didn't wish to be labelled like that. It's not an issue of changing articles to bow to the whims of subjects; it's just how I thought 'identity' was handled here. 209.90.135.148 (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Brexx edits to the A Little More Personal (Raw) section

Brexx/ABH did major edits to the "A Little More Personal (Raw)" section, changing things like "Reviews were unfavorable" to "Reviews were mixed". I don't have time to sift through sources to see if changes like these are warranted, but seeing how it's Brexx there's no reason to assume good faith here. (for those not familiar with the history, User:Anywhere But Home is a known WP:SOCKPUPPET of banned User:Brexx with a long track record of inserting unsourced or poorly sourced material.)

I restored the section from the last version before ABH started to edit:[23]. If anyone wants to sift through ABH's contribs, the last/best version (where ABH's punctuation idiosyncracies has been fixed) is [24]. Siawase (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

just one thing the following is unsourced and should be removed:

The album's second single was supposed to be "I Live for the Day." Radio promo singles were pressed and released and sent to radio stations. However due to Lohan's schedule, she was unable to promote or support the single as she did with her previous efforts. Eventually, since the single received absolutely no radio airplay or support, and the disappointing chart position and sales of the album, Casablanca Records cancelled "I Live for the Day" and moved forward with "If It’s Alright" as the second single. However plans for releasing "If It’s Alright" were later cancelled, as well as all other singles and promotion with the album.

"if it's alright" was never planned to be a single, this is false unsourced information and should be removed.......i guess Wikipedia really is Your source for inaccuracies.

one more thing, the album recieved mixed to average reviews from critics, so saying "Reviews were unfavorable" is also false and untrue. here you go, another inaccuracy.

Morewiser (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Brexx. Thanks for explaining what you were going for when you edited that section. If you had used edit summaries in the first place it would have been much easier for other editors to evaluate your edits.

You are indeed correct, that paragraph is entirely unsourced. If some of the material is controversial, it might be best to remove it from the article for now, pending sourcing. But based on previous experience on working with Brexx, I am not prepared to do any article space edits based on his/her say-so, and regarding this and the other content issues, like I said above, I don't have the time to evaluate it properly right now. I am not familiar with the music side of Lohan's career nor familiar with the reliability of the music related sources used, so it'd be too much of a learning curve for me to do a good job. I very much welcome other editors to revert my revert or delete material as they deem appropriate though. Siawase (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan breaks up from Samantha Ronson

Lindsay told E!News that she and Samantha Ronson have indeed broken up: "We are taking a brief break so i can focus on myself".[25]

......................................... it should be added in the article .......................................

Lindsay Settels Fur Flap

Lindsay Lohan has settled a lawsuit with a 22-year-old college student, Masha Markova, who accused the Mean Girls star of swiping an $11,000 fur coat while exiting a New York hot spot last January.

"It was settled about a week ago, and we filed the stipulation this week," Markova's attorney, Merrill Cohen, tells E! News.

"I cannot tell you any terms, because they are confidential...but I can tell you we are happy with the settlement and we believe Lohan is also—otherwise she wouldn't have agreed to the settlement."

The student claimed her coat was swiped from the 1Oak nightcub in January 2008, while she was attending a private party there. Weeks later, paparazzi photos showed Lohan wearing the MIA mink, and the fur began to fly.

The mink was returned to Markova in February, after Cohen notified Lohan's lawyer, Blair Berk.

But Markova decided to take legal action anyway, suing Lohan in May for wrongful possession and asking for unspecified damages for the unauthorized use of the pilfered coat.

Berk did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.................[26]

it should be mentioned in the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.88 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

LBGT category

Resolved

Hello.
I'd thought this had already been resolved when the category was removed before, but apparently it's been re-added (and without even an edit summary. poor form!)
The BLP policy says that people can be categorized if:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Now, for a person whose remaining claim to fame is largely tabloid gossip as much as anything else, the second point can be reasonably argued. However, the first point certainly can not.
The closest we have to a confirmation (at least, thus far) of her being 'bisexual' is her saying, "Maybe. Yeah." The 'maybe' there tends to suggest that she may not be publicly "self-identifying" there...
However, and more importantly, she immediately then follows it with, "I don't want to classify myself."
The only way the tag can be added is if you want to suggest that explicitly refusing to 'classify' herself is entirely different from categorizing or identifying herself. Personally, I think that'd be silly. :)
Categories are one of those things that should be used sparingly, because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers".
Since the talk pages of some articles tend to not be used much before edits (and since I can't edit the article myself), I'll also include a note on the BLP noticeboard. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Per all the discussion above, 4th thread, I would leave the category out for now. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out who is Jewish, let alone who is bisexual and wants makes one so. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I dissagree.... if you clearly read the LGBT article it says " sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non‐heterosexual instead of exclusively to people who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender." By implying she has an unlabeled sexual orientation, she is a non-heterosexual... and could be defined as LGBT..... I'm not taking an opinion.... but your strict "no" is to far to say.... it can be interpreted.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue is marked resolved. The catergorey is not to be included. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Funnyordie video

Let me try to prevent a problem before it occurs. Her recent Funnyordie video (parody of eHarmony) does not belong in this article. It is miniscule trivia in the context of her entire life and career. There is already a reference and link to it at Funny or Die. Don't add it here without consensus. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think given the level of attention the video ended up receiving from reliable sources it might deserve a a sentence or two here as part of her body of work. Just a brief description like "a spoof personal ad which was viewed 2.7 million times in less than a week". A full summary of the contents and/or quotes from the video is overboard in my opinion. I also think it belongs in the "Other work" section, not the "Personal life" section where it is right now. A few of the sources that covered the video: BBCAPReuters and MSNBC. The Telegraph ran an article which covers viewer numbers and some reactions. Siawase (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a brief mention is appropriate. I left that in the article, but removed the more detailed description. If someone wants to move it to a different section, I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with expanding it, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Ward3001 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the video as a satire is the ultimate acknowledgement of all the rumours, innuendos etc. in a tongue-in-cheek manner. It doesn't verify the rumours at all, it simply plays up to them, quite hilariously. I think these kinds of self-parodies can potentially be very insightful: without editorialising on the extent to which the video is autobiographically accurate, I think including it with some quotes is quite conducive to building comprehensive, factual biographical information. At the very least, the one-line summary on the current version of the page is fine. I just want to point out that it's fairly incorrect to reduce this major stunt as "trivia".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the entire context of her life and work, it's trivia; it happened to get some press attention. It doesn't need to be expanded. Read WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. It may seem like big stuff now because it's getting some attention. In a few months or a year, no one will care. Ward3001 (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to the other works section, added sources, changed the wording a bit to be closer to the sources, and added a sentence on reception/why the video is notable. The ref formatting is very crude, but I'll be back to fix it later. Any input is most welcome. Siawase (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alcoholism

I would be careful putting her in the "self-identifying alcoholics" category; going to a treatment program is not the same thing as publicly identifyuing as an alcoholic, which nothing cited in the article suggests she has done. Treybien 19:45 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually I would agree, but there is a direct quote by her in the article from a reliable source: "I am addicted to alcohol and drugs". I don't think we need to split hairs on whether "addicted to alcohol" is the same as "self-identifying alcoholic". Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The way the cat was added was a bit specious: [27][28] but like Ward says, that quote confirms it sufficiently. The somewhat random addition of her AA attendance wasn't really necessary. (Though to complicate matters, if I recall correctly, she denied being an alchoholic later on, after that statement was released.) Siawase (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Other Side

Lindsay will star in a new movie called "The Other Side".....filming starts in October.....[29]

Lindsay Lohan robbed

Lindsay Lohan's mansion was apparently broken into and an attempted robbery was made. Unfortunately the robbers found her house TOO MESSY so they didn't take anything. Since the New York Police was called on-scene, should this be included, or since they didn't take anything its not important enough to include? I heard it on Reuters too but here is a source (http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=7) Lindsaylohanfanfare (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not with that source, which describes itself as the "number one source for celebrity gossip". This can wait until it reaches the mainstream media, if it ever does. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. We don't have to rush to include every little tidbit of gossip as soon as it hits the tabloids. Ward3001 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If the report of the state of the Mansion is true seems Lindsey is in good company. When Gordon Brown the Prime Minister of Great Britain was her age the same type of burglary happened to his flat. On being called by the Police to attend the flat after the burglary the Officer who greeted him said; 'I'm afraid they have turned the place upside down Sir and made a real mess'. Gordon Brown looked around and said "no, no, Officer, it looks like this all the time". Let's not forget Lindsay is only a young girl.Johnwrd (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Ashley92995 changed the header "Acting career" to "Modeling and Acting career". I reverted because right now it's misleading; the bulk of info about her modelling career is in the "Other works" section. When rearranging the article earlier to create the "Other work" section I left the her earliest modelling work in the acting section to try to somewhat keep a chronological order. Maybe it would be better to move that bit to the "Other work" section too, but I feel that would make the article harder to follow. As a note, the "Acting career" section was always named that, even though it used to include various other work.
On a related note, anyone got an opinion on whether we should include year spans (ie: 2003-2006: and 2007-Present:) to the headers in that section? Siawase (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Question/discrepancy

Noticed that a sentence says: In August 2007 Lohan entered Cirque Lodge Treatment Center in Sundance, Utah for a third stint at rehabilitation, staying until discharge on 5 October 2007.[151]

On August 23, 2007, Lohan pleaded guilty to cocaine use and driving under the influence and was sentenced to one day in jail and 10 days community service. She was also ordered to pay fines and complete an alcohol education program, and was placed on three years probation. “It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs,” Lohan said in a statement.[152] On November 15, 2007, Lohan served only 84 minutes in jail. A sheriff spokesman cited overcrowding and the nonviolent nature of the crime as reasons for the reduced sentence.[153]

If she entered a Treatment Center in Aug 2007 and was not discharged until Oct 2007, how could she have been guilty of cocaine and DUIs on Aug 23rd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madglee (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

She didn't commit the offense on August 23rd, her court date was August 23rd.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to clarify this by adding "appeared in court" or similar, but looking at the source [30] it was (of course) not that simple. There was a courtroom hearing and then a plea deal was worked out in chambers (so we don't know if she pleaded guilty in court, technically). In the interest of brevity I just let it be as is in the article. Siawase (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumored Singles

There is a video on YouTube titled "wathcin' me" which features a rapper and a demo voice, which is alleged to be a demo for Lindsay Lohan. Also there is a demo by Kevin Rudolf, also rumored to be Lohan. Should this be added to the page? 68.43.83.93 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube videos are effectively either self-published or (even worse) copyright violations, with rare exceptions. Wait for a strong source—one will come around, we don't need to break news—and remember that she lives, breathes, and has lawyers. :) --an odd name 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point except for the last one. I think it would be positive for her to see something about leaked tracks and release those tracks. If I'm not mistaken, Bossy was leaked on a YouTube video. 68.43.83.93 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

there is another youtube video titled"Guitly a new lindsay lohan single" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasha Kay Kennedy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's "alleged" and "rumored" and you want to add it to the page??? I am amazed that the other people who responded to you did not mention to you that this is not a place for rumors, half-truths, and allegations. The 'pedia' in Wikipedia is for Encyclopedia.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

I think a brief line in the section about her current music career would be in order. "The anticipation of Spirit has lead to the false classification of several songs as 'new Lohan' tracks. A track by The Saturdays is often mislabeled as Playground by Lindsay Lohan." 166.205.6.187 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Provide reliable sourcing for the phenomenon, and it might be OK.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Album Released in Hong Kong!

Spirit in the Dark will be released on the 30th of September in Hong Kong according to HMV Hong Kong website. Would it make sense to add this? 68.43.81.140 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not without confirmation. Merchant sites glitch like this all the time. If Spirit in the Dark was being released, it would be in multiple gossip sites at the very least, and probably in some reliable sites too.—Kww(talk) 13:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen

"Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" is actually a loose remake of "Hello Dolly!", which in turn can be traced back to a German short story from the 1800's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.225.233 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source this might be worth adding to the Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen article, but it's not really important enough to go in Lohan's biography. Siawase (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Box office numbers

I've been eyeing at sorting out the box office numbers here for a while now, ie, which are weighty and less weighty. Looking at featured articles like Kirsten Dunst, Reese Witherspoon and Angelina Jolie they seem to follow similar patterns of excluding box office numbers for smaller movies and independents and including them when they're remarkably high, ie around $100 million or more.

All Lohan's unremarkable box office numbers (as marked below) are around $20-30 million, with (if you look at imdb and boxofficemojo) budgets at around the same. We also don't have any sources commenting on whether these numbers are low, high or even notably average.

Accordingly, I have removed or retained the numbers as follows:

• The Parent Trap - retained, notably high
• Freaky Friday - retained, notably high
• Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen - removed, unremarkable (added domestic with commentary from Box Office Mojo)
• Mean Girls - retained, notably high
• Herbie Fully Loaded - retained, notably high
• A Prairie Home Companion - removed, unremarkable
• Just My Luck - removed, unremarkable (added weekend box office with commentary from Box Office Mojo)
• Bobby - removed, unremarkable
• Chapter 27 - was never in the article, instead distribution situation is explained
• Georgia Rule - removed, unremarkable
• I Know Who Killed Me - retained sourced "abysmal" opening box office, removed unremarkable world total

If reliable sources can be found commenting on some of the seemingly unremarkable numbers one way or the other, they may be worth restoring. Siawase (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for that—the article already feels less "list"-y now. More still needs to be done to merge paragraphs and avoid proseline. Neither is wrong, but such prose is choppy and repetitive and far from the ideal "engaging, even brilliant" to me. Witherspoon, e.g., has big, more evenly-sized paras. If a paragraph starts with a comparison of some sort ("Far more successful was ...") and it and the prior paragraph are small, they might need a merge. (I've done a few.) --an odd name 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to copy-edit out some of the redundancy in the 2004 segment, but the Mean Girls coverage can still be much improved. And I realize I'm in a minority here, but I am not a fan of the tl;dr style blocks of texts that seem to be favored in featured articles. (Though obviously, one line paragraphs aren't a good idea either. Moderation.) Removing linebreaks does not increase cohesion in and of itself, nor does it increase readability, particularly for reading on a screen. Though it does seem like it does a great job at masking proseline. ;) Look a bit closer at the acting career section in the Witherspoon article and just how many sentences start with "In YYYY, Witherspoon..." Siawase (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of making the article less "list"-y, as you say, I removed the Chapter 27 reception. I think the fact that it barely got distribution speaks loud enough really. I also think more of these vague rotten tomatoes references could probably be removed, but I'm not sure which ones. Maybe Georgia Rule too. Siawase (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also removed the general reviews, referenced to rotten tomatoes, for Bobby and Georgia Rule, because Lohan only has a smaller roles in these movies, the general reception is less relevant to her specifically. Siawase (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I found commentary from Box Office Mojo on the weekend box office of Just My Luck and domestic box office of Drama Queen, so I added that to the article. Also, added a review quote specifically on Lohan's performance in Georgia Rule. Siawase (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Other work section

Attempting to bring some sort of structure to this section, I split it into two subsections: "appearances" and "modelling/fashion". Just to explain what I was going for with the paragraphs, the internal structure of the "appearances" section: the first paragraph is hosting type work and the second is miscellaneous acting type work where she's more or less playing "herself". The structure of the modelling/fashion section: the first paragraph is modelling work, second is the marilyn monroe shoot (separate para due to length and a change in depth of detail and subject somewhat) and the third para is fashion/clothing/design work. I tried to bind some sentences together for more cohesion, but a lot of proseline still remains. Siawase (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bellafante commentary

The removal of most of the quoted material was inappropriate; the Times piece was a commentary on Lohan and celebrity taking off from the photo shoot, not a review of the photo shoot, and the abridged version borders on misrepresenting the critic's viewpoint. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not just commentary on Lohan as a celebrity but rather intrusive speculation about her life and person: "hardened by her excesses"; "tendencies toward self-destruction". I also find the length of the quotes problematic in and of itself. Why should this particular critic have such lengthy quotes and be given so much WP:WEIGHT? She does not appear notable or knowledgeable over any other. Especially when the comments stem from a single photo shoot and modelling isn't even Lohan's primary reason for notability.

For reference, if anyone else wants to comment on this, Wolfowitz version of this segment is:

The New York Times critic Ginia Bellafante found it disturbing: "No matter Ms. Lohan’s protestations, the pictures ask viewers to engage in a kind of mock necrophilia. ... But here all she manages to accomplish is to remind us of her tendencies toward self-destruction. ... At 21 she seems even older than Monroe, who was 36 in the originals, and hardened by her excesses."

while mine is:

The New York Times critic Ginia Bellafante found it "macabre": "the pictures ask viewers to engage in a kind of mock necrophilia. ... She appears dramatic ... [showing] none of Monroe’s fragility"

and the full text of the article is available at [31]. Siawase (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I made an attempt at an amalgamation of the two versions:

The New York Times critic Ginia Bellafante found it "macabre": "the pictures ask viewers to engage in a kind of mock necrophilia. ... At 21 [Lohan] seems even older than Monroe, who was 36 in the originals ... [with] none of Monroe’s fragility"

I welcome any and all feedback. Siawase (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An explanation would be appropriate. All you're doing is sanitizing the commentary,and effectively misrepresenting what Bellafante said. Bellafante is one of the major cultural critics for one of the, if not the, most important national newspapers in the US, and excerpting very short fragments to reshape the import of her comments is completely unacceptable. Several of the references are clearly distorted -- for example, the world "macabre" in the original did not refer to the photo shoot itself, but to the association of Lohan with Monroe as her death impended (a subtle but important distinction); the reference to "Monroe's fragility" did not refer to Lohan herself, but to the manner in which she was photographed. The "amalgamation" stitches together a new interpretation from small bits and pieces of the originsl language, without attempting to preserve its meaning. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I did explain my concerns on the 28th, and, after awaiting feedback, did a bold change to address them. (Though I realize now I forgot to explain my preference for "macabre," apologies for that.) And I'm not trying to distort the commentary. I attempted to pick quotes that sum it up as briefly as possible for weight, while keeping the blp in mind. In my view, phrases like "hardened by her excesses" and "tendencies toward self-destruction" fall within the "titillating claims" blp warns against, even if they come from The New York Times. As for "macabre", it seemed to me that Bellafante used the it to refer to one aspect of what the images are expressing ("the echo") and I don't think it's inaccurate to say that she "found them macabre," even if she discusses other aspects of the photos as well. The word "disturbing" doesn't appear in the original text, and I thought thought "macabre" was more precise and descriptive. But it's not that crucial to me, and if you think "disturbing" sums it up better, I'm fine with it. I omitted "The photographs bear" for brevity and to keep focus on Lohan, but you're probably right and precision and accuracy should take precedent here. So, attempt at an updated version:

The New York Times critic Ginia Bellafante found it disturbing: "the pictures ask viewers to engage in a kind of mock necrophilia. ... At 21 [Lohan] seems even older than Monroe, who was 36 in the originals ... [and] the photographs bear none of Monroe's fragility."

Siawase (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan walk

The deleted scene in "Herbie Fully Loaded" where Lindsay does her entrance walk at the Irwindale Garage pays homage to the Ann-Margret entrance walk in "Viva Las Vegas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.182.103 (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above re: #Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, this is the kind of thing that might go in the article for Herbie: Fully Loaded, but doesn't carry enough weight to add to Lohan's biography. Siawase (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Heath Ledger rumours

According to several Aussie women's magazines, both Lindsay and Dina Lohan have alleged that Lindsay was dating Heath Ledger at the time of his death. Does anyone have any sources about this and, if so, should it go in the relationships section? WookMuff (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This originally comes from one of the taped private phone conversations Lohan's father has been leaking to the media, which, at least to me, raises some pretty serious BLP concerns. And as mainstream news outlets and the most reliable entertainment outlets, like People magazine,[32] have decided to not report it, I don't think we should include it. As a sidenote, there doesn't appear to have been any attempts to add this to the Heath Ledger article either. Siawase (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)