Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

New picture

I was wondering if we could get a new main picture of Lindsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but since pictures of living people on wikipedia have to be under a free license, it's been hard to find pictures of Lohan that qualify. If you want to try looking, flickr is a pretty good place to start, some more info at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. Siawase (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

thats just what i was thinking we do need a new pic of her, get one of her older pics or something, one where she isnt looking depressed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New pic please, this one don't represent reality. LL is one of the most photographied person, a new picture should be add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.252.103 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Lindsay lohan has a certified Twitter account which has constant contact with many high listing celeb's aswell as many love notes to Samantha Ronson should this somehow be intergrated into the fullness of the article somehow as it pays reference to many issues that have gone on [1]Nbeau1989 (talk) 10:23pm, 27June 2009 (UTC)

"love notes" doesn't sound like something of much WP:WEIGHT. If some secondary WP:Reliable sources have talked about what Lohan has written on twitter it might be something to include. We're not exactly hurting for sources here, and WP:WEIGHT and the article growing too large are the biggest issues, no need to go dig around WP:Primary sources like twitter really. BTW, you say her account is "certified", but how is it certified? Her myspace is was linked from her official music site, but as far as I can see, her twitter is not linked from her myspace. Siawase (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the link that i provided when celeb's get a twitter there accounts show up as in-valid then up in the top right hand corner it says on ones that are offical of other celebs like Ashley tisdalePerez HiltonLady gagaRyan SearcrestSamantha Ronson The all have the Stamp up the top all certified and checked out and done for offical reasonsThats the badge i speak of Nbeau1989 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nbeau1989, I don't know how old you are, but a person's first, as well as their last name should be capitalized. You wrote "Lindsay lohan" and "Ashley tisdale". It doesn't look good. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Just another note re: Lohan's twitter, she's saying it's been hacked (not the first time either),[2][3] and some tweets disclaimed, so I guess that's another reason to only use tweets quoted by secondary sources. Siawase (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
She has stated that she is bisexual. So shouldn't the article come under LGBT actors/musicians/people categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.227.17 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC) See archived discussions here: [4][5][6] To attempt to summarize: the (not crystal clear) consensus was that her self-identification was not clear enough that the criteria required from policy WP:BLP#Categories was fulfilled: "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question". (and she never did "state that she is bisexual" or we wouldn't be having this conversaion.) Siawase (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) As mentioned, the discussions are archived, but in a nutshell: The only quote suggesting a self-identification included the word, "maybe", and the only unambiguous statement she's made is that she doesn't want to label herself. So it falls far below the threshold. 209.90.133.41 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I see that someone's re-added the LGBT Actor category to the article. However, this was done without discussion, and seems to be a clear BLP violation. It was grossly inappropriate to re-add it without discussing here first. However, as the article is semi-protected, I'm unable to restore it to a version that doesn't violate BLP and consensus. Could someone please remove the category until consensus has been reached here? 209.90.135.121 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC) In this interview, Lohan spoke frankly about her relationship with Samantha Ronson, and when asked whether she would classify herself as bisexual, answered: "Maybe. Yeah." Perhaps more importantly, I do not think it is appropriate to assert that people who prefer not to label their sexuality should be "barred from entering" the LGBT club. Plenty of queer people eschew labels for personal and/or political reasons. Lohan went public about her same-sex relationship; I think that is enough. Whatever404 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) You'll notice that your quote includes the word, "maybe". Our BLP policy doesn't even permit you to classify them as LGBT unless they publicly self-identify. "Maybe" is not an unambiguous self-identification. On the other hand, directly stating "I don't want to classify myself" makes it very clear that she isn't publicly self-identifying as such. It doesn't matter what everybody thinks, even if they're right. All that matters, as far as BLP policy is concerned, is how they unambiguously self-identify. If you have a problem with that, then you need to petition to change the policy first, rather than simply ignoring BLP when it isn't convenient. You're right: sometimes people choose to avoid 'coming out' for personal or political reasons. But BLP doesn't state, "don't 'out' people... unless you disapprove of their reasons for not self-outing". 209.90.135.121 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC) You seem to have missed my point: I am not talking about "people [who] choose to avoid coming out". I am pointing out, just as others did here, that there are people in the world who are out, who are not closeted in any respect, who do not identify with any particular label for their sexuality. What I am saying is that it is not necessary to someone to say "I am [label]" in order for them to be LGBT. Lohan was in a widely-publicized same-sex relationship and discussed her relationship openly. As such, she belongs in the general LGBT categories. Whatever404 (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, you seem to have missed the point. You directly admit that she hasn't self-identified as being bisexual. The policy page for categories and BLP states: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met: 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. So, again, if she doesn't publicly self-identify as such, then the policy is that you cannot add that category to the article. You acknowledge that she has not publicly self-identified as bisexual, so you can't do it. That's it. Nothing else to discuss. Don't like the policy? Change the policy first. But until that's done, do not add it back in, so long as even you acknowledge that she has not yet met the first criterion. No more of this trying to suggest that it should be added anyways so long as she's publicized, or in a relationship, or any other things that don't matter as far as the policy is concerned. 209.90.135.121 (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Just to add to 209's point, if you do want to change the policy WT:BLP is the way. Not here Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) The woman had a years long, very public sexual relationship with another woman, has acknowledged this relationship, everyone knows this and yet under Wiki's "rules" she is not defined as even bisexual. I'm sorry, but that is idiotic! (75.69.241.91 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)) You people are incredible. So she's straight then? How many women does she have to date and admit to romantically loving before she's identified as not straight? Some of you should read the "LGBT" article on this very website and familiarize yourself with some basic concepts on sexual orientation. She's very clearly identified herself as not heterosexual. 99.246.173.92 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I'm detecting a hint of hostility here. She could date a thousand women and it really wouldn't matter. When you say "identify" you're still talking about us identifying her. However, that isn't how it works here. She has to clearly identify herself as such. You claim that she's clearly identified herself as "not heterosexual". However, the only clear identification she's made of herself has been, "I don't want to classify myself". So, unless there's something in the "LGBT" article that would somehow add a second meaning to "I don't want to classify myself", you really shouldn't be berating anyone for simply adhering to the BLP policy. 72.88.55.196 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Quite so; WP:BLP is clearly a conservative policy requiring unequivocal sourcing, and this is so for very good legal reasons, and also issues of human dignity. However strong the evidence may be thought to be, we do not out people because that is not the function of an encyclopedia. Let's have an end of this unless and until she clarifies her position. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC) She was dating another woman, she fell in love with another woman. is that heterosexual? and this statement made me LOL in rage "we do not out people"...... for one, shes DEFINITELY OUT the world knows about her dating another woman, two, She doesnt have to clarify it if it is what it is. She is a bisexual period.96.51.30.22 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Great logic, since Britney Spears kissed Madonna on live TV I guess we can categorize them both as Bisexual on their articles as well. Nefariousski (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I don't know if 96.51 will ever return to this (as in, I don't know if he can avoid the constant personal attacks long enough to comment further before he's perma-blocked), but just in case... You're using claims like, "the world knows". The world knows, eh? Great. No need to include information in the encyclopedia that the entire world already knows. Problem solved, it stays out. More seriously, arguments like, "the world knows" are precisely the reason we even have rules about sourcing. It's because, "everybody knows" is an absolutely unacceptable measure of proof. You claim she's "definitely out". The problem is that she's explicitly decide to not officially out herself. And, perhaps most important of all, you're drawing an absurd (and false) conclusion. You're implying that, just because the LGBT tag isn't added to her article, that's an affirmation of her being heterosexual. Um... care to tell me where there's a "Hetero" tag on the article? Hm? Nowhere? Precisely. It isn't that anyone's claiming she's straight. We're just not asserting it as irrefutable fact that she's bi unless she unambiguously states it. That's BLP policy. Don't like it? Change BLP policy first, then come back. But any attempts to implement changes to the article that you know full well would violate both the letter and the spirit of one of the most important policies in the site will, by necessity, fail. And you can call anyone you like retarded, and tell them to F' off. But that won't accomplish a thing. Again, get the rules changed and come back, or just drop it. 209.90.134.81 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you for that. Just to add a little, I think it worth pointing out that we're not a tabloid newspaper and we're not looking for a "scoop". Besides which, she isn't notable for her sexuality and she doesn't define herself by it so it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, especially since she doesn't want to talk about it, however much the gossip magazines speculate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Well, as you can see, 209.90.134.81, this ended already by the time you said that, and also does what you said help make the article better? no, its directed at me so is there a problem saying it on 'my' talk page? also, im not quite understanding your logic here. Because the whole world knows something we should leave it out? okay then you can ask a moderator/admin thing to delete 50%(assuming the number) of the articles. And actually, she has said shes bisexual, its even on the damn page. and I dont recall telling anyone to f off. Oh, and i noticed on how some of the pages, sources were perezhilton.com. That being said, he has stated numerous times she is bisexual. It would have been better if you just stayed out of it, i dont see in any way how it was concerning you. and hj mitchell, OHHH im sorry, i completely forgot wikipedia isnt a tabloid magazine and sorry but she is notable for her sexuality, her and her on and off ex-girlfriend sam ronson had huge attention everywhere. And there is no speculating, are you denying that she fell in love with another girl? i understand no-one is saying shes hetero either, but by you saying that, you are.--96.51.30.22 (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Well, according to policy, we only include detail about such things when "The subject's [...] sexual orientation [is] relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life" which, in this case it isn't and, with biographies of living persons, we err on the side of caution. Just remember, we're talking about a real person and what is written here has the potential to seriously affect her life, especially considering it's been read by around 200,000 people in the last 26 days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) well her being a bisexual is in fact relevant to her public life. how is it not? and come on, even though 200 000 people read this every month, you dont think that it would have the same effect if they read that she had a relationship with a woman? it would not change her life. we both know that.--96.51.30.22 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Just out of interest, have you read the article recently? There's been a lot of addition and moving around. In the personal life section (second to last paragraph), her relationship with Ronson is discussed, so it is written here that she had a relationship with another woman. It also discusses an interview and quotes that she said she may be bisexual. Now, since she hasn't publicly self identified as hetero-, homo- or bi- sexual, that is, in my view, more than adequate since she is notable for being an actress and a singer and her sexuality is not directly relevant to that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) <outdent>96.51: You're kidding, right? A facetious statement followed by, "more seriously"... and you think it was serious? Yeesh. And I didn't assume it was "ended" just because you got blocked for a couple of days. You kept rabidly pushing for something over and over and didn't stop until you were forced to take a break. There was no reason to assume that you wouldn't resume once that mandated break was over, and sure enough: you did. I'm not going to wait to comment on situations based solely on your current block status at any given time. Additionally, if you wish to participate in this conversation, you really should actually read what's already been said. As was mentioned earlier (repeatedly, actually), she hasn't unambiguously declared herself bisexual. Any statement including the word, "maybe" is certainly ambiguous. Indeed, the only unambiguous statement she's made on the subject is that she doesn't classify/label herself. As for that nonsensical rambling about perez hilton... uh... I have no clue what you're going on about. And you have no business telling me what to stay out of or what does or doesn't concern me. I'm the third person who commented in this block, and started two of the three past conversations on the subject that were linked to in the second comment. How the frig does that mean I have no business participating in the conversation? You aren't making any sense. And, again, no. Declining to assert that she is irrefutably bisexual is not the same as declaring her straight. You can claim otherwise, but that's outright false. So, yet again... the official policy which you may not break (and may only circumvent by first having the policy itself changed) is that we cannot include the tag. Not until she makes an unambiguous statement. There's zero room for discussion about whether or not we should just ignore BLP. Your only option for getting it added is to petition to have the BLP policy changed. So why the heck haven't you simply done so, rather than arguing here? 209.90.135.55 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC) i was blocked for a day and you said that when? 4 days later. like i said, this is directed at me so do you have any problem by saying on my talk page? since this has nothing to do with improving the article. as for the perez hilton thing, i saw that on some of the pages, his publishing is used as sources and proof for some things, and if you read his website you would clearly see he says shes bisexual or jokingly calls her a lesbian. and i do have business telling you to stay out of it, it already ended by the time you said that so you just wanted to get your two cents in making yourself look better, smarter and superior, with your "wikipedia policy". And i wasnt talking to you. first of all hj mitchell pasted part of the policy saying if it doesnt effect their activities or public life then you dont mention it. well fyi it does effect her personal life, her relationship with sam was the thing that was holding her back, making her go clubbing worse because shes a dj, and funding her cocaine addictions. like her father said. and if you are going to say "Declining to assert that she is irrefutably bisexual is not the same as declaring her straight" AT LEAST read the whole thing that i say, here ill make it easier for ya, i said this in reply to hj mitchell "And there is no speculating, are you denying that she fell in love with another girl? i understand no-one is saying shes hetero either, but by you saying that, you are." because he said the magazines speculate. Who cares that she said maybe when she said yes she was bisexual, she still said yes to shut all of you up, but as you can see it was awkward for her since she never did that before.... so what is it going to take for us to note shes lgbt??? shes going to have a huge coming out story in a magazine? pft get real now we all agree she is bisexual right?....I am right, always will be, still am, now embrace it.--96.51.30.22 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) No. Policy on biographies is not negotiable, and you've already been told too many times. I'd advise you to read that policy again very carefully, otherwise you'll find yourself on the wrong end of another block, this time a more lengthy one. Also worth taking a look at WP:TRUTH. Rodhullandemu 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) blocked for what exactly? discussing? well if you dont want to be apart of it you dont have to if youre getting sick of this. oh by the way im still right. its so sweet of you!--96.51.30.22 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) You're not discussing; you're continuing to push a point which you've been told is untenable and you can be blocked for disruptive editing. Clearly consensus and policy are against you here, but if you want to take it further, please see this page. And I am also still all right. Thanks for asking. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) To perhaps put it simpler for the anon in question: You think you've proven she's bisexual. What you apparently fail to grasp is that, even if you have, you're still wrong. Even if you had videotaped evidence of her engaged in intimate relations with a dozen women, verified by the FBI, you still wouldn't be able to add the tag. She has to out herself (definitively. no "maybe"s) in order to be declared bisexual. Does that make it easier to understand? Nobody's saying that her relationships aren't noteworthy at all. However, that's why they're covered within the article text. So, any pertinent and noteworthy facts are addressed in-article, and any indisputable and BLP-conforming facts may be used for the categories, which are really just a bookkeeping thing anyway. I don't see why you want to subvert one of the core principles of wikipedia just for the sake of bookkeeping. Additionally, Rodhullandemu is correct. You can be blocked for excessive incivility (such as declaring yourself some sort of winner and gloating, even if you do so by ignoring the discussion entirely), for forcing arguments just for the sake of your own amusement, or for attempting to violate BLP (you may wish to follow the suggestions of others and simply petition to change BLP). I'm not trying to accuse you of any of those, but merely tell you how you may look, and how it can be handled by admins. 72.88.74.79 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) What makes her straight? She's been in a relationship with a woman...What do you want her to do to prove she's bi? Make her wear a sign that says, "I'm a fat ol' bisexual"? Also, just because she doesn't like talking about her sexuality doesn't make her straight, who does want to talk about their sexuality in public? In today's world, you can beat up or killed for being gay. --Theatheistgerm (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Find me the sentence that says "Lindsay Lohan is heterosexual/straight/etc". I suggest you read the article before you come stirring things up on the talk page because if you had, you would not find that sentence because nowhere in the article does it explicitly or implicitly say she is heterosexual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a GA

From all I've read, this looks like a good article to me. It might need some lead expansion (I think some more personal-life info could be snuck in), and it's certainly not a featured one (still needs work on filling in ref info, perhaps higher quality sources, and a check of those further books) but I think it meets the base GA criteria. I'd prefer that someone else nominate or list it, if they must, as I've been reading or working on it to some extent for a long while and I'm a bit of a fan. :) --an odd name 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really nice to hear you think the article that good, and I agree it's gelling pretty nicely now, even though there's so much more I know can be improved. But I'm well aware that my work is moving at a snail's pace, so I'm not going to ask anyone to hold off until I'm "done" (likely a very long time from now. ;)

Some sourcing issues remain that I believe will stop it from becoming a GA right now. In particular, sourcing in the music career section is lacking. Though this should hopefully be fairly straight forward to sort out by googling up the relevant pages for the stats at billboard.com and adding them as refs.

The sourcing in the parts on early career/early life/education is also problematic. A few details are still not properly sourced, and it's very difficult to find good sources (those "further" books would probably be a godsend.) Several of the sources already in use may only be borderline WP:RS (tiscali.co.uk? filmbug.com?) and does MTV Diary even fulfill WP:V? I don't think it's archived anywhere where it's available for verifying except perhaps copyright infringing copies online. I added the biography channel bio [7] but after looking over it more carefully, it is suspiciously close to older versions of this article, raising WP:CIRCULAR concerns. Siawase (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked up those further reading books on Amazon and unfortunately they seem unsuitable as sources. They are all listed in the "Children's book" category and with Reading level: Ages 9-12.[8][9][10] I went ahead and removed them from the article as well, as it doesn't seem appropriate to recommend children's books here. I also asked for source advice re: early life at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and got some pointers on which online biographies to use. Siawase (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to the official family website

The link to the official family website!

The Official Lohan Family Website - lohanhouse.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hprata (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This NYMag.com post mentions the site, for others wondering. --an odd name 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Awards

If we're going to list awards anywhere outside of the prose, I think it would be better to include them in the existing filmography table, similar to how it's done in the featured articles Kirsten Dunst and Reese Witherspoon, rather than create a separate list with nothing but awards. Siawase (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the E*Trade lawsuit?

What up with that? It's current, verifiable, and relevant.192.44.136.113 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a contributor to the article (I have her watchlisted because I like her and she's a vandal target) but if you could provide a few decent references (something like a broadsheet newspaper article) I'd be happy to add it in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-100309-lindsay-lohan-sues-etrade,0,4884514.story

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/lohan_such_baby_jVdQWABj9z0MgXzCv1Nh1O

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/reuters/MTFH55238_2010-03-09_17-27-15_N09240786.htm173.56.121.145 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This might actually have reached the level of attention with reliable, mainstream media sources that it should be included. The most weighty/reliable sources I found at google news: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_gl3lzFA347mKtRZoXjPtM6Zi0QD9EBACPG1 (AP), http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6283HD20100309?type=entertainmentNews (Reuters, same as the cnn link above), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704145904575112070739770554.html (Wall Street Jounrnal). Whatever we include should probably be as brief as possible, and I'm stumped as to which section it should go in. Siawase (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

From that coverage, I'd say it's definitely worth a mention in the article. My suggestion would be to stick it at the top of the "personal life" section, but I'd be concerned that, because it;s not incorporated into a subsection, it could appear to be giving it undue weight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd stick with a brief mention in "Personal life".—Kww(talk) 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, definitely somewhere in the personal life section. Actually, looking at it now, it would fit fairly well in the "Car accidents, DUIs and rehabilitation" section. I suggest renaming that section to something like "DUIs, legal issues and rehabilitation" (it's been renamed several times before so it shouldn't be a big deal) and putting this lawsuit at the tail-end of that. That should avoid any undue weight issues too. Siawase (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while we're discussing the PL section, why not rearrange it altogether and do it chronologically rather than topically? It would make it easier to add new information as it becomes available (like this) and give the article a tidier appearance. The number of headings needs pruning anyway- the contents table is a bit excessive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been working towards redoing the entire article chronologically actually. But I'm working through section by section the way it's laid out now, improving sourcing and wording. Though my work is very slow, so it may not be in the best interest of the article to wait for me to get done with that. :p Though on the other hand, it would be hard to merge badly sourced and written information with well sourced information. For example, much of what is under the "Relationships" header could be related to her career and merged into that in chronological order, but that is not evident from the current sources and wording. Siawase (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about entirely chronological ordering- there's something to be said for having the personal stuff separate from the career etc. I've had this watchlisted for quite a while and not been very active so I might help you out with that- there's easily enough material on the www to get her to GA and maybe even back to FA eventually. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case though, there is massive redundancy and overlap between Lohan's personal life and her professional. Just compare the "Career interruptions" section with the rehabiliations in the personal life section. Parts of the "Family background and education" section may benefit from being kept separate though, as it might lend undue weight if it was put at the top, and it primarily deals with Lohan's family rather than her own person. It would be great if you'd like to work on this article! I mentioned in the #Maybe a GA section above some of the remaining issues if you're interested. Siawase (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Chronological works, anyway. I had a read through that and you raise some valid points. From my experience as a GA reviewer, I could probably find some more but I might see if I can be of use on the article. It would be nice to get it tidied up a little bit and looking in better shape with everything in its place. I'll see what I can do to help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well just because you --Theatheistgerm (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)don't like talking about your sexuality doesn't make you straight. She has been in a relationship with a woman,for gods sakes. That's what bi is, What do you want her to do make her bi? Wear a big sign that says "I'm a big fat bisexual"?

Relationships rewrite

I tried to trim down a lot of the more gossipy material, and just get to the barebones. Instead I added some material relating her dating life to her career (all of which should be well sourced.) I also trimmed down a lot of the older material regarding Ronson. It was originally added because the sourcing situation at that time was unclear, but since she has spoken about the relationship it can be summarized now. My copyedit is a bit clunky, but hopefully that can be cleaned up a bit. Siawase (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it probably needed that. As long as everything that remains is encyclopaedic and well sourced it should be fine. I've been going through and touching up some bits and giving it a fairly thorough copyedit. There's a lot of information here and the vast majority of it is well sourced. I think there's work to do in the aesthetics and structure and it needs a bit of a tidy up, but the article is actually in quite good shape. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this was the last section I was combing over for a substantial cleanup. It wasn't very encyclopedic before, so hopefully this helped a bit. I tried to add some info to make it clearer how it can be merged with the career section if/when we do make the whole article chronological. Like you said, only a few bits remain to be sourced, still mostly in the music section. Most of your copyediting looked good from what I saw. Are we doing the whole chronological do-over? If so we might want to wait with the more fine-polishing copy-editing until that's done. Siawase (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll finish my copyediting first (btw, I left another fact tag because quotes require a ref immediately afterwards) and then we can look at how to do the chronological thing. I moved the family background stuff to the top because there's merit in having that in its own section and it should be at the start. The copyediting can be polished up after we've done the chronological stuff, but I think it's worth tweaking some of it beforehand. I'm also stumbling upon other issues that I can fix as I go. For example, I removed the sentence "Lohan is well known on the party scene". I cna;t think it would take more than an hour or so for me to get to the bottom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK,  Done on the copyedit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to rush you. (like I mentioned, I work slow :P) I was just concerned that if we do major restructuring you might have to do some of the copy-editing all over again. (the ref for that quote is after the next sentence, so it can just be duplicated.) The first paragraph of the "Early life and education" section is fine at the top of the article, but I think having the bits about her parents turbulent history so early in the article is problematic from a weight point of view. The divorce material doesn't even belong there if we're going chronologically. Maybe we can just move most of this down in the chronological overhaul. Siawase (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you're up for starting the chronological overhaul now, maybe we could copy the article into userspace so we can mess around with it more freely? Siawase (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It might just be worth leaving it here and putting {{underconstruction}} or {{inuse}} (or {{GOCEinuse}}) on it to warn readers it might be a bit unstable for a little while.

No rush, I meant to finish last night but got sidetracked. I haven't been as thorough as I could have been because we can go back through it when we're happy with the structure. I suppose the stuff at the top should be what the section header (now) says- "early life and education". The other stuff can go in a personal life section or within the career stuff chronologically. Whichever works best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Either way we do it is fine with me really. But I did an incredibly rough shuffling around in my userspace just to see how it might work. See User:Siawase/Lindsay Lohan WIP. (Of course we don't have to continue working there if you rather just do it here, but you can still check out how it turned out.) There are quite a few bits that are problematic that would require some work and/or discussion on how to handle. I also just realized we may want to hold off for a bit to see if other editors have some input, as this would be quite a big change. Siawase (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Your draft version looks much better. I'm not entirely sure about the section hierarchy- some of the level 3s should be level 2s and vice-versa but the basic structure looks much neater. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I did a quick fix up of the headrs, trying to make them similar to other bios organized chronologically ([11], [12]). Feel totally free to play around and edit it if you want. It's just a rough draft anyway.Siawase (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you copied it here while I was writing my comment. Well,let's just keep it here then. Siawase (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! If you weren't done, by all means keep fiddling around. How are your technical skills? I'd like to get that filmography into one table split into three parts rather than 3 different tables. If you could do it, I'd appreciate it, if not, I'll fiddle with it in userspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I copied the changes I made to the draft over here now. Unfortunately, tables is one area I know next to nothing about. I do know there used to be a much nicer version in the history, but there was a lot of slow edit warring back and forth over the layout. Btw, re: the tables, what do you think about putting awards into the fourth column of the filmography? Siawase (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll fiddle around. Or I might cheat and see if I can find another bio that does it the way I'm thinking. If you want to put them under "notes", I'd say go for it, that seems noteworthy to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The table looks much better now! I'm pretty much done shuffling the material around in chronological order. Some oddities remain but they are shorter passages. But I removed underconstruction as it's mainly good ol copy-editing that remains to be done now. Siawase (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good! It took me ages fiddling with it in preview mode to make it work! It trims the table of contents as well. I also chnged some of the headings to subheadings under a "career" section. What do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit misleading since non-career material is now in those sections. Those other chronological articles use a "Biography" header. ([13], [14]) Maybe that would work better here too? Siawase (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a reasonable point. I don't like using the term "biography" because the whole article should be a biography. It is predominantly focused on the career aspect, though.

On another note, I think it might be worth moving some information, such as her political stances etc, into a separate section. Any thoughts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the politics chronological, mainly for weight issues, as breaking it out separately would draw undue attention to what was really a very brief involvement. I think it works under the 2008 header as it speaks pretty strongly to what she was getting up to at that time. Her earlier political comments were just brief statements and work well as background as it is now in my opinion. Maybe if she get further politically involved it would make sense to break it out to keep it cohesive, but for now I'd prefer to keep it where it is. Maybe we could get some third opinions on these two issues from other editors who watch this article. (Neither of which is a big deal in my opinion, but still :) Siawase (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm inclined to agree with you on both issues, though I'm not sure what the section should be retitled to. I think it might be worth breaking some of the material out into a "personal life" section but, obviously, not just the politics for weight purposes. Do you think there's enough material to make it worth it without cocking up the chronology? If not, it still makes sense where it is, so it's not a big deal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just merged some of the personal life material pretty well into the general timeline, so I wouldn't immediately jump to break it out again. I'm not sure which exact material you mean though, but in general, some of the more detailed personal stuff might benefit from trimming it down further, lending it less weight, rather than breaking it out again to give it even more weight. Siawase (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You could be write, but it's our "job" to summarise the contents of all the sources available and there are plenty of sources on her personal life, which is a good and a bad thing. I'd normally be extremely reluctant to get into the more tabloidy areas, but, my reservations aside, I think we could do with just a little more info on her relationship with Ronson and her relationships in general. We don't need to go into details on those, but it's useful to say "has had several short-term relationships" or something and that she is not married. I'd base it roughly on how it's done on Kirsten Dunst (an FA).

Also, there's very little on her "obsession" with Monroe. I saw a few sentences on it when I was copyediting, but, for example, she has tattoos on her arms (I saw her on TV last night). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess as always, it comes down to sources. What additional info on the relationship were you thinking of? Lohan for the most part has rebuffed the tabloid speculations regarding multiple relationships, ie: "If I dated as many people as they said I have, then I would be dead, because it's just not possible".[15] So to say something definitive on that we'd need to have some pretty strong sourcing. I totally agree that it would be good to include more on Monroe and Lohan's other influences. She has a surprisingly strong interest in old time movies and movie stars that I think would be worth including. This is something that a lot of other chronological articles keep in a separate section too. Siawase (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think we should include any info on the people she's been linked with earlier that have been reported by reputable sources (not gossip magazines and tabloids). I had a quick trawl through Google News and came up with a few interesting things that might be of general use:

• [16]
• more on the E*Trade thing
• [17]
• this interested me, but I'm not entirely sure it has a place in the article.

As for the Monroe thing, I'm sure it's well documented so I'll see what else I can dig up. Also, what about restoring that "other work" section and putting things like her fashion designing in there? Or do you prefer to keep it entirely chronological? I'm just bouncing ideas around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Sun is a tabloid (both of your links re: Ronson reference The Sun) and I'd rather avoid using it as a source if possible. The Red Cross stuff might be worth including, but by itself it seems a bit trivial. I prefer keeping the fashion work in the chronology. Before it seemed like she did barely anything in 2008 and 2009, but now you can clearly see that she was actually keeping quite busy with her fashion work, as well as a few other things. Some things are still oddly placed in the chronology though. I can't think of what to do with the men's magazines toplists for example. Siawase (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps (still just bouncing ideas) those, the charity stuff, maybe some of the politics and a little more on the relationships could form the basis for a "personal life" section. Obviously, we don't want to break the chronology, but some of it could be give a brief mention in context with more detail later on. I'll keep trawling for sources. I might have to use my sandbox to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the meantime, there are still 2 {{fact}} tags in there- both on her music career. I wouldn't be surprised if there were sources for that within the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I was bold and moved some of the information around to create a personal life section with some of the stuff that isn't related to her career. I've found a little more info to go in there and there'll probably be more to come. On another note, I ran the article through Checklinks and it showed up with 5 or 6 dead links which is quite concerning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved Ronson back up to the main timeline. By having her be the only one in the personal life section, it gave anyone clicking directly down to that section the impression that Ronson is her only relationship, or at least the only one worth mentioning there, which is misleading or gives undue weight in an odd way. Siawase (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuck

The song just leaked a few days ago and yesterday the full version was on and she already confirmed that is her and is part of Spirit In The Dark album, someone should put about it and also she still says that she is going to relased the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.224.105 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone tried to add it earlier I think but it was removed because it can;t be verified. I'll have another look, but if you have a source, it would be helpful! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for WP:LEAK when you do so. Most leaks aren't documented in Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not seeing anything that would suggest the leak itself is notable so I suppose we wait 'til it's out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perez hilton posted the full version on his blog and i read through all the comments and there was a huge majority that liked it. Why wouldnt it be notable? You could also state that she has been in the studio. She tweeted it to someone asking back in january.... dunno why thats not even posted... sighh this article needs alot of fixing up, i wish it wasnt locked.Shelldone (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish it wasn't locked, or rather, I wish it didn't have to be, but as soon as it's unlocked, it creates the mother of all BLP problems with all the shit that some people insist on adding so, unfortunately, good people like yourself are also prevented from editing. As to Stuck, I will have a look through the article and see what needs updating and I will have a good look for some more sources. However, we can't use blog or Twitter posts as sources for a variety of reasons to do with them being self published, potentially unreliable and generally not appropriate in an encyclopaedia. If the information is in, for example, magazine reports or news articles or on recognised, reliable music websites, then we should be able to use it. On another note, you only need to make another six edits before you're allowed to edit the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think locking articles is a beautiful thing, as it keeps disruptive socks and IPs away. (See Sheldone's edit to the talk page of Lindsay Lohan discography, for example, calling us idiots.) As for this song and Spirit in the Dark, it should not be included in the article unless a very reliable source is provided. People were edit warring to include that "soon to be released" album 2 years ago, and look at it now - not a trace of it. Nymf _hideliho! 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt call you an idiot, i just thought it was stupid to add the song to the singles part but no other information about the leak at all. And HJ mitchel haha i didnt know i would be able to edit it after 6 more edits XD, i dont really pay much attention to encyclopaedias--Shelldone (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll only need four days and ten edits (in most cases) to earn the mythical key to the silver lock. (See, Wikipedia's a game!) That's not a tough requirement at all—just correct a few spellings and wait. Be careful with different English dialects, though. --an odd name 04:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

.....seriously...

Being on Project Runway should not be on the filmography. WTF u might as well add the time she was on Ellen or some shit.

New sections go at the bottom, not somewhere in the middle and please use ~~~~ to sign your posts. Why do you not believe it should be in the filmography and why do you believe the talk show appearance should be in there? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhm. Lets see I don't believe it should be in the filmography and second of all, I said talk show appearances SHOULDN'T be in there. Talk show appearances and reality shows don't use 'acting' in their programs. Some do but it's still not considered acting, if I went on Ellen or some talk show because I can play the piano or w/e I wouldn't be considered an actor..so yeah. --Theatheistgerm (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatheistgerm (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, try to make your point civilly so we can have an adult conversation. If you don't use an edit summary when removing information and then come to the talk page and just say "I don't believe it should be there", it's difficult to see things from your point of view. However, since, as you say, it is not "acting" and all the other roles in the table are, I've removed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit semiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} Lindsay Lohan got fired from The Other Side.....so, remove that movie from the continued career section and from the filmography section.......SOURCE

Bare with me while I check that out, thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is no need for you to edit in the nude, although I understand some editors do. Rodhullandemu 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that that is just Brexx again.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the source checks out, so I've removed it, though it was only posted half an hour ago, so I'll keep an eye out for more sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy have the story, if that's any help. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already removed the film from the article, I don't think it's really notable enough to be mentioned, but I'll keep an eye out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Spirit In The Dark

Why delented that post? I mean still true and if you don't want to let it under that name at least put "Lindsay Lohan Third Studio Album" or something cuz even still nothing with the coming out of the album, the album still on the road with the leak of "Stuck" the song of her that was in the show of Alan Carr and she also tweets that she still working on the album and the collaboration of Snoop Dogg is going to be on the album and she also said that she has a song on the album penned by Kara DioGuardi and produced by J.R. Rotem, which has a “Madonna undertone”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.27.114 (talk)

1. Unsourced 2. WP:CRYSTAL 3. Please use punctuation 4. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ Rodhullandemu 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those events only suggest that Lohan and those close to her are trying to market something that only might come out, at best, and won't come out, at worst. "Stuck" might get on an album, or on a single, or stuck (as it were) in her résumé portfolio somewhere in her cabinets. Whether it'll ever be sold, given away, liked (or hated), etc. seems still up in the air. Did Carr even give any opinions on the song? --an odd name 23:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have to agree. Commas are your friends! We need reliable sources for that kind of info (which excludes Twitter), though there is a mention of the new album in the "2006–2007: Independent movies and career interruptions" section (at the bottom)". If you have a decent source, you're welcome to suggest improvements or additions and I promise to at least listen to your suggestion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Just a suggest you guys don't have to kill me, is not like if I get into the sistem and put it without permission...damn you guys sucks, chill out, have sex, whatever...but chill out..I was just saying.

Why?!

Why deleted the entire article of Inferno, the 2011 film? This is why people hate posting to wikipedia, wiki nazis delete EVERYTHING, rather than just fix errors! RUDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpo90 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the article still exists, but the current version is a redirect. Please check WP:NFF to understand why this was done. In short: articles should only cover notable films where the principal photography has already started. Otherwise, we'd have tons of articles about movies that were never made. Please note also that this talk page is only about the Lohan article, not about other articles, may they be related or unrelated. Thanks for your cooperation, --Catgut (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When are they gonna add the BBC3 India Documentary to her TV filmography?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.143.19 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's leaking it all

it's leaking the whole lindsay's next album. Shouldn't we do something about it? At least some information in the article. I used to read the articles in wikipedia to know if there were anything new about the music artist, maybe someone else does. Stuck was one song but now there's three - Stuck, Can't Stop, and I Wanna be Bad, without counting Bossy (that was leaked and then released as a single in 2008) OAVJunior (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm incredibly busy right now, but if you could find some decent sources, they might be worthy of a mention in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If the leaks themselves got substantial coverage, they can be mentioned in the article. They don't get listed in discographies, and they don't get individual articles.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There are sources, I can get them especially from IMDB.com in her news section they posted a few articles mentioning these leaks, and no only blogs but well established webpages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.234.46 (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 06:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I would nick it from IMDB but from the news section where their resources are usually webpages from TV Networks like NBC, ABC or E! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.143.19 (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Future releases

I split the future movies up again for clarity, since Machete is definitely coming out in 2010 (filming is done) but the other two haven't started yet so a 2010 release date seems less likely. The Other Side is behind schedule (shooting was supposed to have started in October.[18]) The latest somewhat reliable sources regarding Dare To Love Me are almost a year old. Carlos Gardel#Dare To Love Me is referenced to imdb who apparently at once time said that "production is set to begin on the film on 18 May, 2009 and it will be released in late 2010" but now imdb just lists it as "Status: Unknown".[19] Siawase (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dare To Love Me was finally deleted from imdb. The page where it used to be located now just comes up as "Page not found".[20] Imdb was the most recent source we had on the status of this movie. The second latest source was a brief mention from April 2009. As such, I think it's time to remove it from this article per WP:CRYSTAL, as there are no recent sources asserting this movie will be happening. And if news appear it would be easy enough to add it again. Imdb also removed Lohan from the cast of The Other Side.[21] I don't know what to make of this yet as I haven't found a mention of it in more reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay while in Cannes, has been attached to a new release "Black Friday" in 3D by Yuhei Kitamura. There are several sources confirming this now. Can it be included? I'm not a member of Wikipdia but if someone who's a member and could actually edit her info and put this along with the info for Inferno. [22] [23] [24] [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.143.19 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on the warrant for her arrest?

The story of her travelling to Cannes and missing her alcohol education classes, and consequently another court hearing has been all over the news, but nothing has been said about it on her page. Why is this? Le David (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably because I'm the only editor actively maintaining the article at the minute and I don't read tabloid newspapers :). I have to say, having had a quick look into it, that it doesn't appear especially notable, but I suppose a sentence or two could be worked in somewhere. You're welcome to be bold and update it yourself, though you'd need to be careful though, since the information's quite negative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see! I was just wondering because I thought it was quite notable, especially now that she has been ordered by a judge to attend weekly alcohol education classes, has to wear a SCRAM bracelet, refrain from drinking alcohol and undergo random drug tests.Le David (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I have time to see if I can find any decent (preferably non-tabloid) sources and add something in, but you're welcome to do so yourself if you want :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that! It's well written without being critical. I really hope Lindsay gets her act together, I want her back on top form! Le David (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)