Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Underground Comedy Movie

{{editsemiprotected}}

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

in the 2010-Present section and in the filmography section, add the movie "Underground Comedy 2010". In the movie she plays Marylin Monroe.Source.

I wonder why it's not listed on her IMDb page. IMDb's filmographies are usually reliable. Cresix (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it wasn't in IMDb, either. I can't find anything about the movie in the mainstream press, only on all the gossip websites, all repeating the same mantra about a secret movie that was supposedly shot before she went to jail, that there's a trailer of the movie, that no one seems to know much more about it, including what's going on with it now and when it will be released. Without more, I'm not inclined to put it in the article, but I'm happy to hear from others.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL. Also, this looks like it was posted by Brexx. Siawase (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Can you explain to me why you think it was posted by Brexx? Also, an IP added references to this movie in the article on the 1999 movie. See here. I'm thinking about deleting what has since become a small section of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See[1], same IP range as previous Brexx proxies, same use of the editprotected template without signing the post. Same old Brexx areas of interests (Lohan, box office numbers and crystal type material.) Siawase (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess you also have to be familar with Brexx and the history to even spot it in the first place. And to think I never even heard of sockpuppets before editing Wikipedia. What a world.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

it has an Official Website. and a movie that is completed and in post-production is NOT WP:CRYSTAL.

The "official website" probably hasn't been updated since it was first created. It still says that the movie is going to be released this fall. So, where is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Proving once again that anyone can register a domain name or two. The supposed production company's website has one page - an advertisement for this movie. I've taken down the template as it is obvious this request is going nowhere. Celestra (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the material from The Underground Comedy Movie and referred to this thread in my edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention on entering rehab on September 28, 2010?

I was reading the article, and was wondering why isnt there any mention of Lohan entering rehab on September 28, 2010 where she is staying until her court hearing on October 22. [2] Antonellicollege (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. The source isn't the best in the world, and what they say isn't particularly definitive: "TMZ reported that Lohan, 24, arrived at an unnamed Southern California facility on Tuesday". That's pretty iffy. Maybe you could find a better source?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking, but have been unable to find a really reliable source. They're all "according to reports" or worse. I'm guessing once she gets out and the court date is in a day or two that some more reliable sources will mention the recent rehab stint, and we can include it then in whatever form they do. It's happened before that she entered rehab so privately that there actually were no sources on when exactly aside from the stalkerazzi or blog hearsay, which aren't the best to use in a blp. Siawase (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How about This Source, Lindsay's mother Dina personally admited that Lohan is in Rehab: ""Lindsay is so happy, and I'm so proud of her. They're wonderful at Betty Ford, it's a really good place, it's just amazing. She could walk out tomorrow if she wanted, but she doesn't want to. We have a great doctor, and great people helping her. It's a great facility. It's not one of those 'happy Hollywood' places. She didn't have to go there. She could have opted for a less serious place, but we knew that she had to go to this plae, because they take [addiction issues] so seriously".Antonellicollege (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely better. However, it doesn't say the date when she entered Betty Ford. It's also such a silly article - the parent thing is such a circus. Anyway, my inclination is to wait until after her October 22 hearing. It's only a couple of days away.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is better, but I think for material like this first-hand comments are probably what we're wanting, or at least comments in court. Considering that we should have such material in a few days, and it will probably be more complete, too, I think we can wait a few days until either she speaks directly or a more formal statement is made in court for the record. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User Bbb23, just want to direct your attention that in the second source, it is mentioned the date she entered Betty Ford, at the very end of the article, it says: "Lindsay plans to remain at Betty Ford until October 28 to finish her 30-day program."Antonellicollege (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, sorry I missed that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All Headline News did not talk to Dina directly, but says that "Dina told TooFab". So googling up the actual source, it appears to come from here:[3] which seems to be some sort of subsidiary of TMZ. Siawase (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

^so, what are you saying, is that a good thing or a bad thing?. Oh and i also found this sourceThis Source, which i think is very reliable.Antonellicollege (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

She went to court today, and was just ordered back to rehab until at least January 3, 2011 -- no jail time. She is due back in court on February 25. She will be subject to drug testing in between her release from rehab until her court date.Source. Antonellicollege (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this Highly reliable source, it cant get any clearer than this:But Beverly Hills Superior Court Judge Elden Fox ruled she should return to the program that she entered voluntarily three weeks ago, and stay there until Jan 3.

. Antonellicollege (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I did an update using that Reuters report, as well as CNN and AP.[4] Any comments, edits etc are most welcome. Siawase (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Double Exposure?

I can't say I'm greatly aquainted with double exposure but from what is written in it's wiki page I'm not sure it belongs in the filmography as till now it has been for acting jobs only. Just a thoughtm correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.205.167 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion the filmography should only include clear acting work, not presenting or hosting or anything where she's credited as herself. I boldly removed it from the filmography, let's see if there are any objections. Siawase (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Cresix (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree also, i also think that "Labour Pains" should be in the "film" category rather than the "TV" category since it is a film and not a tv show, maybe with a note saying it was aired on tv or something? --Duphin (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's in the TV category since that was how it was distributed in its primary market (ie, the US.) It did get theatrical release in a few markets though [5] so it's not cut and dried. Life-Size and Get a Clue are not tv shows either, but they seem to belong pretty firmly in the TV category. I guess it hinges on whether Labor Pains not being originally produced as a made-for-tv movie and also getting theatrical release in a few market disqualifies it for the TV category. Siawase (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah i understand what you're saying, it seems pretty stupid to have the films in the TV section at all in my opinion they should be in the film section (since they are films) with a made for TV note or something. --Duphin (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lohan no longer in the Inferno movie

Per E! News[6] which was reported by a few other moderately reliable outlets.[7] Per WP:WEIGHT I removed details and comment on the movie as Lohan will no longer be in it, so it doesn't really relate to her anymore. For reference, or if we need to fish out some details later, here is the version immediately before my removal:[8] Siawase (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

6126 Collection merger

Just thought I'd leave a note here that a discussion was started at Talk:6126 Collection on merging 6126 Collection into Lindsay Lohan. Siawase (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Underground Comedy 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Lohan is staring in a movie titled Underground Comedy 2010...Source....can someone add it in the filmography section please....

Done I did, though, use a different source. In general, imdb is not considered a reliable source as it's essentially an open wiki. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that this request was likely made by banned user Brexx. Siawase (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the change because it corrupted the table. I could have fixed it, but I didn't like the source for the change, either. If Qwyrxian and Siawase disagree with my view on the source, it can be added back in properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the source. Not sure if it's appropriate to add it to the filmography table yet per WP:CRYSTAL. I'd prefer to wait until it actually goes into distribution. Maybe some blurb can be added to the prose though. I'll try to see if better sources are available yet. Siawase (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I found one really great article from TIME magazine.[9] It's a lengthy interview with the director and it's almost all about Lohan's part of the movie. I added a small blurb to the 2010 prose based on that.[10] Comments, edits etc are most welcome as always. Siawase (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

www.lindsaylohan.com

Not sure if this should be added yet as it just says "Coming soon", but http://www.lindsaylohan.com/ looks likely to be an official site now. Looking up the whois,[11] it's registered to a law firm that represents several other showbusiness clients.[12] Siawase (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.98.16.71, 29 December 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In Filmography, for the 2006 film The Holiday, it should be noted that it was a cameo appearance

81.98.16.71 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Cresix (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Filmography - playing yourself

Is there a policy (or practice) at Wikipedia regarding listing of films in which an actor plays himself or herself? An editor added the 2006 movie The Holiday, in which Lohan, in an uncredited appearance, plays someone on a trailer within the film - very remote. I've searched, thus far unsuccessfully, for any guidance on whether it's appropriate to list such a film in a filmography. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it's not a good idea, but I can't find where I read it. I haven't reverted the change, although I think if it remains in, it should say "Herself" in the role column, because it's not clear to me what's appropriate.

I should add that if I were drafting a policy on this issue, I would say it's inappropriate because a film in which an actor plays herself is not an example of her work as an actress.

Thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a difference but she's still part of the movie. Thus in my oppinion it's okay to list the movie in the list of movies she's taking part in. --Jobu0101 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards excluding "herself" credits in general, but this one is a bit of a borderline case, being a feature film and looking at the clip she's pretty clearly acting (meta-acting?) even though imdb credits it as "herself". This does/will apply to other credits too. She's credited as "herself" in Underground Comedy 2010 too, and in the older animated direct-to-video film My Scene Goes Hollywood. But the question to me is, if we list certain "herself" credits, how and where exactly do we draw the line not to list others? I also did a pretty thourough search and found no policies or guidelines that directly apply, and looking at featured articles about actors there doesn't appear to be any obvious standard practice either. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers could bring a wider input, but it doesn't look super active. Siawase (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If she's acting within the trailer (and the trailer is not real, meaning she did the acting for Holiday), then I would favor putting it in. If she's just playing herself, then, as I said earlier, she's not acting, and it doesn't belong. I don't know how to resolve this issue on a more global basis, although we could try seeking input at the project or from editor assistance. Otherwise, I guess we just have to go with a consensus for Lohan's article and leave it at that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

These cameos that actors play should be listed because they are often important. For instance, Alan Ladd had a bit part as one of the uncredited, silhouetted reporters in "Citizen Kane". I've seen other Wiki movie sites where they list "uncredited" roles by the actors. It's interesting and useful from a film historian's viewpoint to know what bit parts actors had before they became famous. Lindsay's cameo/film-within-a-film was actually the best scene in the movie "The Holiday" as far as I'm concerned, and should receive note. It's like the "Machete" trailer--a whole new film could be made from it. It's odd, but Lindsay actually made only two really good movies--"PT II" and "Mean Girls" in her career, and yet she became a very well-known actress. But that isn't who she is, as we've all found out. 64.169.155.54 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 64.169.155.54, I was hoping we'd get some input from more people. I think a good line in the sand would be to include herself/cameo credits in films but not TV or other work. (Though that still doesn't make 100% clear where My Scene Goes Hollywood would fall, sigh.) There is some predecent in featured articles, ie Brad Pitt#Filmography. For Wikipedia editors to make judgement calls on whether each instance constitutes "acting" or not would be too WP:OR in my opinion, and not really meaningful. Other reference works that include self/cameo/bit parts include all regardless. (BTW, 64.169.155.54, Freaky Friday was also critically acclaimed; last I looked rotten tomatoes had it listed as her highest rated movie. Though it didn't have the same impact as the two you mentioned. /sidenote) Siawase (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Criminal category

An editor added Category:21st-century American criminals to the article, and I reverted it with a detailed explanation in the edit summary. The same editor added it back in (without explanation), and I reverted again. WP:BLPCAT says (in part): "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability." In my view Lohan's problems with DUIs, etc., do not relate to her notability as an actress. Therefore, the category is inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if Lohan has been convicted of multiple DUIs and as the lead explains those convictions and her rehab stints have led to "several lost movie deals"? And at this point of time when Lohan has been in the news most for her probation violations and not her work in entertainment? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume that Judy Garland had been convicted of DUI. I think it's safe to assume that Garland's career as a singer/actress was hindered by her addictions. Would you still want to categorize her as a criminal? If we categorized all entertainers with addictions (and convictions related to those convictions) as criminals, we'd have a helluva lot of people in that category. These categories are generally restricted to people who are notable because they were a criminal, or perhaps a politician who committed a political crime, not for every notable (for something else) person who is convicted of a DUI or even multiple DUIs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The operative words from WP:BLPCAT are "relevant to the person's notability". She was notable beforehand, and if she were not so, this conviction would not make her notable. And "at this point of time when Lohan has been in the news most for her probation violations" is pure WP:RECENTISM. Should not be used as a cat, per WP:UNDUE, but could be mentioned in the article text. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lohan's guilty plea and her subsequent probation problems are already in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Echoing the two previous posters, Lohan is not notable for her crimes, which were misdemeanors, but her crimes (and at this point, the aftermath) are being reported on because she is already notable. Siawase (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Bbb23, Rodhullandemu, and Siawase. The Judy Garland example is a good one. If she were alive and active today, I think a few editors would be placing her in the criminal category, but with more perspective provided by time, most people would not consider Garland a criminal. All of LL's escapades are just too recent (and not serious enough) to put that label on her. Even Winona Ryder doesn't have that category (nor should she), and her "crime" was more serious. There may be other categories to describe LL's legal problems, but "criminal" is not the one. Cresix (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rehab battery accusations

I haven't decided yet if I think this is weighty enough to add to the article, it may depend on what more comes of it. But I looked into the sources so far. The "weightiest" outlets to have reported it are reuters[13] bbc[14] and ap[15][16] Any thoughts? Siawase (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. On the one hand, it's been reported in the mainstream press, and the police are investigating, but on the other hand, it may lead to absolutely nothing. I guess I lean slightly in favor of not putting it in the article. As an aside, I don't believe WP:WEIGHT applies, although I've wanted to use that policy for things similar to this. The policy applies when one wants to add a viewpoint to an article, particularly one that may be disputed, but not a fact. I'm not sure what policy applies - maybe the essay on recentism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the recentism essay relates to WP:NOTNEWS, and that certainly applies, so we might as well wait until the situation gets clearer or we know where this is going. Thinking it over, one of the reasons I don't want to add anything yet is that there isn't much meaningful to say. Any summary would be more on what is not known yet (ie something like: "Lohan has been accused of battery, but as of X date it is not known yet if she will be charged with anything or what the legal ramafications will be, if any.") Though WP:WEIGHT does apply too, with regards to what type of material we give emphasis to, particularly in a blp like this. If, for example, we only gave brief/shallow coverage of her work, but went into detail at great length on her legal entanglements, that would convey a point of view (even if unintended) on what kind of person Lohan is. The 2010 section does suffer a little bit from this right now, and the recent legal coverage could probably stand to be summarized a bit briefer. I think this it's part of what WP:RECENTISM is getting at. When editors follow the news stream and add information as it is reported, that material often gets bloated. But it can be difficult to summarize while events are still ongoing. Siawase (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: TMZ (yeah... I know...) talked to the lawyer of the alleged victim, and she's now saying she won't cooperate with law enforcement.[17] I guess that makes the whole thing less likely to go anywhere. And still as of yet nothing of substance to add to the article in my opinion.

Also re: WP:WEIGHT, I guess I should have re-read it before writing that long explanation above. While most of WP:WEIGHT deals with POV and opionions, one of the later paragraphs deals with material in general, and news in particular, and makes clear that WP:WEIGHT does apply to facts, not just opinions:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Pretty much what I was trying to say, heh. Siawase (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, now the sheriff's department did some announcement that in their opinion Lohan did violate her probation. I'd say it still falls under WP:CRYSTAL though as it is just their opinion, but this is getting up there in weight.[18][19][20][21] (btw, thanks Bbb23 for sorting out the order in the 2007 section, I knew it needed to be done but never got around to it.) Siawase (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving rehab

As of what I can find right now, it still seems unclear if Lohan has really left rehab. NYmag from the 4th: "I didn't leave [rehab]," Lohan told Gossip Cop Monday afternoon. "[I'm] going to the gym.” ... Then, but two hours later, People reported that Lohan really left rehab. Who knows if it's true?"[22] AP from the 4th: "Lohan was back in the Los Angeles area — and being followed by photographers — Tuesday afternoon. ... TMZ later posted video of Lohan heading to a gym. When asked by a cameraman how it felt to be back in Los Angeles, she said it "feels good" but dodged questions about the Riverside sheriff's investigation, saying "I'm just going to the gym."[23] Siawase (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Marilyn Monroe

Is a picture of Marilyn Monroe actually required on this page? Sure, make the reference about the clothing line, but I do not think an image of Marilyn Monroe belongs on Lindsay Lohan's page. It feels out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.234.129 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am more than open to suggestions for other images. The real problem is that we have so few images of Lohan to work with (for more info see archived topics:[24][25].) So I went looking around featured biographies to see what kind of images they are using, and come across a picture of Monroe at Madonna, that's where I got the idea. Monroe is someone Lohan greatly admires, it's not just that she named the clothing line after her. I expanded the image caption a bit to make that clearer. Siawase (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lindsay being sued

yet another scandal for her, apparently Tanning Vegas a mobile tanning service is suing her for running up a 40k bill between 2007 and 2009 which she refuses to pay, again i was wondering if it is worth mentioning at this time like her charges with the necklace but i think it should be put on due to the fact that papers have been drawn up even if we dont know the end result yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.18.220 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a private lawsuit against Lohan for an allegedly unpaid bill belongs in the article. Unlike her other difficulties, it isn't relevant to her career.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, re: reliable sources and weight, this hasn't been widely disseminated at all, and looking at googe news results[26] most hits are at entertainment/gossip outlets and blogs. Siawase (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Source query (India documentary)

In case anyone is interested in chiming in, I asked about a potetial source at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Siawase (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll comment here rather than at RSN. An editor there expressed an opinion that the source has a "strong viewpoint" but that factual material could be gleaned. The problem is, what are the facts beyond "LL was involved in a child trafficking documentary"? There is so much opinion about LL that it's hard to pick out the facts. Not that I necessarily think the opinions apparent in the source aren't justified; if the writer is correct, it's a typical LL project for the last few years: lots of her unreliability and ego. But I don't think we need to be making such statements without sourcing that is not so opinionated. If this event is notable, I think there should be an additional source or two out there that mentions the facts. Cresix (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Siawase, I know you said on RSN that you wanted to use the source to insert a summary of the production, what exactly do you want to say? To me, the source can't be viewed in a vacuum, but must be evaluated in the context of what it is being used to back up.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, i was writing a long reply when Bbb23 posted) Indeed, the tone of the piece was one of the reasons I wanted to make sure about the reliability of the source. I have no intention of including the opinions therein. (I have found several reviews of the program that will do a better job of providing opinion. Though just as a note, most of the British commentary and reporting on the documentary is fairly scathing. This piece was probably the worst, but it's not extreme in comparison.) But the raid incident (where the charity that performed a raid to free trafficking victims criticized Lohan for making a twitter posting that read like she participated in the raid.) received a lot of media coverage, and I am considering including a brief mention of that, and I think it might be worth including that Lohan was originally scheduled to be present for the raid, and possibly also mention that an interview was originally scheduled with UNICEF. (The latter might fall to WP:WEIGHT, but after reviewing the sources, there seem to be enough to satisfy notability for a standalone article on the documentary, so it might go there.) Anyway, both these facts should, if the source is indeed WP:RS and not just an opinion piece, be possible to include as plain facts without echoing the tone and opinions from the piece. Siawase (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the guidelines for BLP require us to be especially cautious, I would prefer additional sourcing for any "facts" that could be construed as criticim of LL. Even a statement such as "Lohan was supposed to be present during a raid but did not arrive in time", although likely factual, could be taken as a criticism. The source is just too loaded with negative stuff to use it for that purpose. I would prefer another source for anything even remotely critical of Lohan. If she received press criticism, there should be other sources. Cresix (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think it's time to go back to RS/N. Would you like to mention your objections there? Or I can just copy-paste what you wrote here. Siawase (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I made my comments here because they pertain to the Lohan article rather than reliability of the source and didn't want to flood RSN with comments about Lohan. I'm not so much concerned with the reliability of the source as I am its usefulness in extracting factual information. As I said, it all we added to the article was "Lohan was involved in a documentary on child trafficking", I would consider the source reliable for that. Cresix (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, which exact statements a source can be used to support is what RS/N is for, and I think that's what we've boiled it down to here now, which is why I suggested taking it back there. If you won't I'll attempt to summarize your objections myself, because they go to the heart of my own concerns about the source. But since I'm leaning towards the source being reliable enough to use despite these concerns, you might want to make your own comment. Siawase (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cresix, that any "facts" gleaned from the source that are critical of Lohan should be sourced from somewhere else. Conceptually, I understand that even a blog from a supposedly fact-checked (not self-published) source can be reliable, but I don't have a lot of confidence in these kinds of opinion pieces, even when they come from otherwise reliable sources, and I'm not sure that the same kind of fact-checking that a news piece is subjected to also occurs in this kind of a piece. I also agree with Cresix that if the facts are sufficiently notable, they should be published in a news piece, which would eliminate the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to summarize your objections at RS/N. If you think I didn't adequately represent your views, please do comment there yourselves. Siawase (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your summary. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the whole expansion as I intended and did a WP:BRD edit inserting it into the article, see diff:[27]. Maybe it will help to see the material sourced to the lost in showbiz blog in context. If you think the expansion comes off negative, I actually excluded or minimized some of the most negative commentary. The Guardian was probably the outlet with the most coverage, and most of it was very negative. Their "Lost in Showbiz" blog had three scathing entries[28][29][30] of which I only included the two facts mentioned at RS/N, and none of the (abundant) opinion. I also excluded the guardian's extremely sarcastic review, because frankly I wouldn't know how to quote from or summarize it in an encyclopedic manner. "A satirical letter written from Lohan's point of view portraying her as a bit of an airhead" maybe?[31] I included a brief mention that the guardian were critical of BBC3 for hiring Lohan, sourced to:[[32]] If anyone is interested in going through them, these are the sources I looked at, not all of which were used in the article: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] And some more sources related to the twitter/raid incident: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] As always, any comments or edits are most welcome. Since it's a WP:BRD edit you're also welcome to revert the whole thing if you think it's just way off, and we can discuss further. Siawase (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So, after all that I decided to create a separate article at Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey, and I cut down the coverage here pretty severely since it was way too long WP:WEIGHT wise and all. In that process I ended up excluding the source that started this whole thread, so I guess we all have consensus on that now. :) But one reason it turned out so long here was due to WP:NPOV and balancing all the negative critique with whatever was offered by the production side. It would be great if those of you who had concerns earlier would take a look at the paragraph now (diff) and let me know or edit it if you think it could be summarized better. (And for that matter, take a gander at the new article and see if you have any concerns there.) Cheers, Siawase (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Kimmel

she was on Jimmy Kimmel after the oscars spoofing herself about the stolen necklace case, could it be noted somewhere, this is similar to including or not her appearence on the MTV Music Awards spoofing herself and her drinking problems.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.29.145 (talk • contribs)

The secondary coverage of this is a bit borderline (ie, I'm not sure it really carries enough weight) but I did find a few half-decent sources to draw from that could be used to include a small blurb here.[61][62][63] Siawase (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible Grand Theft Arrest.

perhaps some information on her new little scandal, she supposedly stole a $2500 necklace from a store in Venice,California, she says they loaned her it, they say she stole it, many are saying shes in violation of her DUI probation and could serve 6 months to three years in prison... anyway its all over the news, i think waiting to see if anything more comes of it or not would be a good idea, just something to watch out for and possibly add to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.18.220 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is similar to the Rehab battery accusations discussed above. Like you say, it's still basically speculation. If charges are actually filed, that will probably be a good time to add something to the article. Siawase (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a little tidbit about her being officially charged Feb. 9 as per DA. Hope I didn't over step. Glennconti (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw this from TMZ earlier, but since the DA has now confirmed that it's going down and it's being reported widely in reliable sources we might as well mention it. This will likely end up being edited and revised many times over as it goes down anyway. Siawase (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have waited for the charges to be filed rather than reporting on an announcement that they would be filed. However, because of this discussion, I left the material in and just reworded/shortened it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred to wait also, but the real oddity here is the DA confirming it before the fact and pretty much the whole of mainstream media reporting on it. The cat is seriously out of the bag already, and since we're only talking about a day or so anyway, oh well. I updated the source with a longer AP report and in the interest of WP:NPOV added that Lohan's attorney has denied the charges. Siawase (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah well it has officially been filed now so it belongs in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.18.220 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any source for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All sources I found said the arraignment is at 1.30 PM pacific time. Siawase (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see those sources now (didn't before). My favorite is when the same source talks about how good Lohan's hair looks. Hollywood - doesn't matter what you're charged with as long as you look good.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated with a new source to reflect the filed charges. And yeah, yesterday the media paid almost as much attention to her hair salon visit as the criminal charges... Siawase (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the probation was revoked the February 25th court date should no longer be in play, so I removed that and added an update that she left rehab in early January, since we finally have some good sources on that. Siawase (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

...and added the new Feb 23 hearing date instead... Siawase (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I added that her probation was revoked to give context to the scheduled hearing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, seems like the hearing on the 25th is still on after all.[64] This all is getting rather complicated... Siawase (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless I missed something or hell finally froze over and the media stopped reporting on Lohan, there was no hearing on the 25th after all. Siawase (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the language about the 2/23 hearing. I've kept to the source, but I've left out certain details because explaining them would take up more space than I think is warranted. But I'll explain a little here. Judge Schwartz is the judge who would evaluate any change of plea and plea agreement. If Lohan decides to accept the plea agreement, Schwartz would handle that and the sentencing. If, on the other hand, Lohan rejects the agreement, it would go before a different judge for a revocation hearing and a preliminary hearing. I'm not sure - the source isn't clear - whether those two hearings would be handled by the same judge. The revocation hearing is to decide whether she violated her probation and, if so, what penalty to impose. The preliminary hearing is on the grand theft charge, and the judge would decide whether there is probable cause to hold Lohan over for trial.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for laying that all out, it really is getting complicated. I think the media might actually be getting a bit burned out because coverage from the better sources on this was pretty meager. Reuters had a pretty lengthy report[65] but it covers pretty much the same ground as AP (with a sprinkling of speculation curtesy of TMZ.) And I agree that for now the salient point to include is the potential plea deal jail time (it's also what's been in all the media headlines.) All eventualities fall under WP:CRYSTAL really and we might as well wait to include all that until after the fact. Siawase (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to keep up with the timeline on this: at the March 10 hearing basically nothing happened except the plea hearing was delayed until March 25. I didn't get around to updating the article and now the rescheduled hearing is in just a few days. But I gathered sources on the March 10 hearing, so I'm leaving them here just in case: CNN AP (webcite) Reuters Siawase (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is unbalanced. I don't think that I'm being in any way controversial by saying that professionally Lohan is best know as an actress. However the first entry in the box after her birthdate is which musical genres she's associated with. There's then an occupations section that gives acting an equal billing (okay, it is listed first), with singing, modelling and fashion design. Then there's a list of her recording labels. Factual it may be but from reading the box alone I would assume that she's some kind of singer and fashionista that has done some acting. Can I suggest that the musical bits be removed, reduced or at least shunted down the box to avoid undue weight? danno 02:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the template would have to be changed from musical artist to person. I don't think the change would permit the flexibility the musical artist template has for listing labels, etc. That said, I agree with you and would favor changing the template, even if it means losing some of the musical stuff in the exchange.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried moving the genres part down to where the labels section is but the template put them back in the original order so it looks like the templates would have to be changed. On a lower profile article I'd do the swap in a heartbeat but I guess on this one it probably requires a little more consensus. danno 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox templates generally have their own order and can't be changed without changing the template. I wouldn't touch the template. As far as your surmisal that more consensus is needed for this article, I think that's a very reasonable assumption. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet what I think would be the best template to use here (though I do see the undue weight issue with the current state.) But note that it is possible to tweak templates on individual articles, though I'm not sure to what extent. You can see the tweak I did at Hello Kitty to add a "Full name" field to the character infobox, though the new field always seems to end up at the bottom. But it should be possible to use the person infobox here and add a "Genre" field at the bottom. Siawase (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are not tweaks to Template:Infobox character; they're standard parameters for the template. I recommend against trying to alter a template for a specific article, although I agree that it needs to be changed. Template:Infobox person has "modules" that allows for "embedding other infoboxes", but I'm not sure how that works. Cresix (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone might want to pose these questions on the Pump, or even on the Help forum. There are some very technical editors who can be very helpful for this sort of thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fine especially in the opening it says ' she launched a second career in pop music' second career wouldnt suggest that she is mainly a singer. 89.243.29.145 (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting removing her music career from the infobox, but for anyone unfamiliar with her, reading the infobox now with the genres listed first of all gives the impression that she is primarily a musical artist. Cresix: yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, sorry if I was unclear. Siawase (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I did initially suggest removing the muscial stuff ;-) If people feel that going to the pump and asking for suggestions is the best way to go then I'm happy to do that, but I think it's worth pointing out that the David Hasselhoff article (and he is a proper bona fide recording artist with numerous number one albums) uses the generic infobox person rather than infobox musical artist. Perhaps that's wrong and a whole new more flexible infobox is required for people that have achieved success in numerous fields.. danno 20:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, even if we remove the genres and record companies the infobox would still mention that she's a singer, so her music career would still be included. And it would still be rather prominent, one of the first words aside from her birth stats. Thinking it over, I would be fine with just switching to infobox person and leaving the genres and record companies to the article text, but I wouldn't be opposed to a tweak to include the genres/labels further down either. Siawase (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

TV - Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey

Is it possible to add this documentary from the BBC within her TV projects under Ugly Betty? For startes, unlike Double Exposure or a talk show this was a documentary starting Lindsay (as well as doing the voice overs)and it was shown in more countries over this year. There's even an IMDB entry with more credits. It was shot in 2009 and it premiered on UK TV in april 2010. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.205.248 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the documentary should be included in the filmography here. Though Lohan has been doing a lot of non-movie work lately, and one alternative might be to create a standalone filmography article, and include all of it there. See for example Christopher Walken filmography which is a featured list and includes TV and other appearances. The documentary itself is also likely notable enough that it would be possible to create a separate article for it. See all the sources I listed in the Source query (India documentary) above. Siawase (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be included, although it isn't a "role" per se it is a serious documentary which aired on a reputable network. I understand that things like being a guest on a talk show shouldn't be included but when stars like Jennifer Lopez or Christina Aguilera are judges on shows (American Idol, The Voice) these are listed under TV so i don't see why a documentary can't be listed. --Duphin (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Name Change

Apparently she's dropping the last name and she's just "Lindsay" now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMK1211 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 March 2011

Not reported in any particularly reliable sources, and the ones that are reporting things are just reporting conflicting statements from Michael and Dina Lohan.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Lohan.

I see the pronunciation in this article is New York wrong. It cites AP as the source, but a good rule of thumb is "If it's AP, it's wrong."

Lohan is Irish and pronounced "Low Han" just as Cohan is pronounced "Co Han". It appears that New Yorkers are confusing Cohan with the Jewish Cohen and then transferring the pronunciation to make "Lohan" Lowen. It is an Irish pronunciation -not a Jewish one-- and is definitively "Low han" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopsdragon (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 hearing

Hi,

Lindsay Lohan was sentenced to 120 days in jail: [66]. I have added information about the ruling, and the reference noted here, to the article. If you feel my edit was unjust, please feel free to improve or remove it from the article. Thanks, Bulldog ^{edit my talk page da contribs} 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a great update to me. I updated with the bail release and trimmed out some details. I also added CNN as an additional source.[67] And just for reference, this Reuter source is also good.[68] Siawase (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources are conflicting on the community service hours. CNN says 360 hours at the women's center[69] while AP says 300.[70] Maybe we could skip over specifying in the article and just mention that part of it will be at the center. Siawase (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind removing the entire parenthetical as it's not really a necessary detail. However, the MSNBC article seems far more loose with its facts than the CNN article, and FWIW, the LA Times's report ([71]) is the same as CNN's. Shouldn't we be mentioning the morgue? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much agree. Actually, she's done community service at the morgue before, but it wasn't deemed weighty enough to include then. And isn't this all WP:CRYSTAL anyway since it's up for appeal? Siawase (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the reports indicate that she can't wait for the resolution of the appeal before fulfilling her community service obligations. Essentially, she avoids jail pending appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, complicated as usual. So the community service is basically happening right now before any more hearings or the trial? But yeah, still leaning towards excluding details on the exact nature of community service on WP:WEIGHT concerns. Siawase (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't say "right now", but my assumption is there's a deadline for her to complete the community service, and it's not dependent on the appeal. Feel free to take out the parenthetical, though - as I said, it's not necessary that we put in every little fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. It flows better this way too (not a crucial concern but... ;) Siawase (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

May 11 hearing

Update:[72] CNN Reuters AP (webcite) I'm not sure what this means for the previously scheduled June 3 court date. All the news reports say the sentence is for the theft, not probation violation. But for now I just left all the previous material in place. Once it's all said and done all the material related to the theft can likely be summarized and reduced considerably, quite a bit of redundancy in there right now. Siawase (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

are these photos needed?

Do we really need photos of Marilyn Monroe and the Volkswagen "Herbie" in an article about Lindsay Lohan? They contribute absolutely nothing to the article's topic. (I'm not removing them yet because I wanted to hear other's opinions first. Not to mention some Wiki people are a bit sensitive about such edits.) Elsquared (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am more than open to suggestions for other images. The real problem is that we have so few images of Lohan to work with (for more info see archived topics:[73][74].) So I went looking around featured biographies to see what kind of images they are using, and come across a picture of Monroe at Madonna, that's where I got the idea. Siawase (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the MM image, but the car? =/ Crystal Clear x3 09:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Herbie is essentially her co-star in Herbie: Fully Loaded, which was one of Lohan's biggest box office successes. An alternative would be to use a picture of a human co-star, for example Meryl Streep, who spoke highly of Lohan when they worked together. Another suggestion: a picture from Cold Spring Harbor where she grew up (unfortunately we don't have a picture of the high school she went to) or of the Chateau Marmont Hotel where she lived for two years. Siawase (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

comedy central voice?

is it worth noting she says the opening segments on tosh.o... like the part where they say warning or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.195.178 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

House arrest

The sources aren't entirely crystal clear on how how much time she is expected to serve. I went with a rough 14-35 days to cover all bases, but there may be a better way to put it. Sources: CNNReutersAP Siawase (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed it back so it only says "about 35 days." It seems to be the consensus among sources now too. Siawase (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lndsay Lohan

Click the above. How does that work? It doesn't work when you mis spell any other article. Colt .55 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone decided that a redirect of that misspelling was warranted. Not that it's a big deal, but this isn't really the right place to ask such a question. For example, WP:HELPDESK would be better.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal problems (article structure)

Should the personal problems not be put into a seperate part. It is all now mix inbetween her career which is not good and unclear. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.59.24 (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there should not be a "Personal problems" section. Wikipedia discourages such sections because they tend to attract excessive and overweighted additions. Best for such matters to be discussed in the context of other events in her life and career. Cresix (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe her legal issues and non career related info should be put into seperate "Personal life" or "Private life" section as many other people's pages have, I agree that it all gets confusing and distracting when interspersed throughout her career informantion. --Duphin (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues in Lohan's personal life have affected her career so heavily they would still need to be mentioned in a career section no matter how we structure the article. There are many featured articles on here which don't have a separate "Personal life" section, in particular those who, like Lohan, have done both acting and singing work, ie Madonna, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey. Siawase (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, reading (skimming) through the article from beginning to end, I don't see a problem with the interspersed "personal life" material in the earlier sections. The material in the 2007 section is rather complicated, but flows decently and is relatively easy to follow. The confusing part starts around 2010, and I think this is because this section isn't very well structured internally. Different editors have added various material as it has passed through the newsflow, but no one has gone through this section to structure and copy edit it to make it more cohesive and give it better flow. It can be difficult to do this while events are still ongoing. There is some more material I want to add to the 2010 section and some I want to remove/replace (if anyone is interested I can lay this out here beforehand, otherwise I'll be bold) and some of the legal material is overly detailed and could do with being summarized further. The chronology of the section isn't entirely clear either, things like where in the chronology deep throat and underground comedy should be included. But overall I think a thorough copyediting will make the section much more readable and less confusing. As a start, I summarized the Sept 2010-Jan 2011 events down to the nitty gritty, just the events that actually happened, see diff:[75] As always, all feedback is most welcome. Siawase (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion of the article structure here. The recent bold edits by User:RoadHouse and User:GotMilk3 (see diff: [76]) fundamentally changed the structure of the article.
1) I disagree with this restructure for the reasons I mentioned above. Her career and her personal life are so intermingled that they will have to be mentioned in conjuncture with each other, they cannot be split up into separate sections and the article still be coherent.
2) Indeed, much of the material that was moved to a personal life section deals directly with her career and has pretty much zero to do with her personal life, and vice versa some material that is unrelated to her career is still under the career header.
3) A lot of material was moved under newly created headers that don't belong there. Only one sentence under the "charity work" header deals with charity work, the "paparazzi problems" header is of questionable POV and only a minority of the material deals with paparazzi issues, same issue with the "health problems" header.
4) Some of the material was ripped from a chronology where it had context and could be read in a cohesive manner, ie the 2007 appendix surgery was moved to the "health problems" section where it has no context at all, instead of the chronology where it was in context of all her escalating career issues in 2007. Siawase (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally think her personal life should be seperate from her career altogether. In the later years there is personal info than career relevant information.--115.186.112.179 (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the personal life material is given undue weight in the later years. Compare the length of the legal material in the 2010 section with, for example, the coverage of Mean Girls earlier in the article. Rather than giving it even more weight by creating a new section for it, this material should be given less weight by trimming it down, summarizing and removing excessive detail. And rather than attempt to separate it out from the career material as if the two are unrelated, we should explain more clearly how her career efforts and her legal entanglements have affected and complicated one another. This can be sourced, and I am working on gathering sources to do so. Siawase (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)