Talk:Lindsay Lohan

Time for a new picture?

The current one is from 2007. And while in most peoples' cases that tends to not be very long, Lohan seems to be living a rather harder life than most. That, and she's been a blonde for quite some time now. If there's a free picture out there somewhere, it might be time to put up something more recent. DigiFluid (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no one has been able to find a free picture. Maybe it's time to create an FAQ on this as it keeps coming up: [1][2] Siawase (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that now. After spending most of a day at work on Wikipedia, apparently I had tunnel vision and didn't see the archives lol DigiFluid (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Turned out to be great actually! When I went looking for links to put together an FAQ, I ended up finding a recent free image. From all I can find, it actually is free and not flickr washed. Here: File:Lindsay Lohan at Cynthia Rowley.jpg. She's wearing sunglasses but I'm guessing no one will object to using this image in the infobox? Siawase (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucky find! Works for me. DigiFluid (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the infobox image. No one at commons seems to have found any issues with the image copyright, so hopefully my assessment was correct. Siawase (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never thought of myself as prude, but does the sunglass photo (@Rowley) show a little too much up her skirt to be appropriate?71.38.136.150 (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't even notice that. I just did a quick crop to remove the rest of the audience, but I wouldn't mind cropping the image back further to just her face and upper body. It would make it more of a portrait picture too, which would be appropriate for the infobox anyway. Siawase (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An image with sunglasses covering up most of the subject's face is actually not very encyclopedic. And replacing an appropriate image simply because it's from 2007, which was certainly more relevant cinematically than now, is not a good reason in and other itself. Mostly, though, big sunglasses hiding doesn't do the job the image is supposed to be doing, which is to provide a recognizable, encyclopedic image as a reference tool.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't feel strongly either way here. From previous talk page discussions and edits to the article (attempts to add more recent images that turned out to be non-free) consensus seemed to be strongly in favor or a more recent image in the infobox. But if consensus is that the sunglasses are problematic enough that this image should not be used in the infobox, I have no objections to moving it down. The last section is sorely lacking in images so it would be of use there too. Siawase (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds eminently reasonable — as do you yourself. It's nice to work with collegial and open-minded colleagues! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a regular user, but would a photo of her Playboy cover be notable? I've seen others with equally notable covers on their pages as well, I believe. Or perhaps a screen shot from one of her films? The photos on here do not exactly show her in the best light. We have known her as a decent looking redhead (that should be noted in a picture I believe) at some points in her life. Or just a decent angled photo in general. There's not really a photo on here that portrays her with the look we mostly associate her with so it would be nice to distinguish her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.86.145 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I moved your post up since we were already discussing new pictures in this section, I hope you don't mind. If you read above, the problem is finding a free image. The criteria for non-free material and how it can be used on Wikipedia are strict, and Playboy or her movies don't really qualify. The best bet would probably be to find an appropriate image, contacting the copyright holder and convince them to release the image under a free license. Siawase (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. On a side note, would paparazzi shots or personal Lindsay photos by chance be a free image? Would they really have copyright holders? talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.43.59 (talk)

The copyright of a photograph is owned by the photographer, absent some special circumstances. So, it's possible, for example, that the copyright of a photo by a paparazzi might belong to the publication the paparazzi works for. Regardless, it would only be a "free" image if it were clearly licensed accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, copyright in almost all countries is automatic, even for personal photographs, so the copyright holder must always actively re-license or relinquish the copyright to make free re-use possible. Siawase (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New format

Hey, I propose a new format for this page, i created a new format, in which things are put in differnt sections, i belive everything flows for clearly, in simpler, but less confusinh Lindsay Lohan, please let me know what you thing, and make any suggestions, If(i)Were 03:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's easier to understand! 68.7.253.104 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussion on some of the problems with redoing the structure topically rather than chronologically: [3] Your sandbox version suffers from many of the same issues, in particular the inherent WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues with breaking out sections like "Legal issues".

But actually reading your version, it seems you have removed huge chunks of the article. Just at a quick skim, it seems you simply erased most mention of where her personal life disrupted her professional life, which is highly questionable both with regards to WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The way you present the material it looks like she has a career, she has some personal issues, and the two never really affected each other at all. That's not the way reliable sources portray it.

I also question the NPOV of putting some car accidents, charity work and political work under an "Image" header. And why is the New York and Playboy modelling under "Image" rather than in a modelling/fashion career section? (Seems you also just erased all of her other modelling work too?) Siawase (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree, it looks like this current page, is a news room, rather than a biography, film work is missing, lindsay lohan is known for her acting career and her legal issues, my article is simpler and more clearer, as well as WP:NPOV, regarding her image, her protrayel of marlyn monroe is aprt of her image. the current article also just includes quoations of other people. lastly, we should leave the descion of a new format to either be supported or not (something you can't control) If(i)Were 20:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifiwere (talk • contribs)

What film work is missing from the current article? Siawase (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support the new article as implemented by Ifiwere. It doesn't address Siawase's concerns, particuarly about the impact of her drug/legal/criminal issues on her career. It is also sloppy. Other than when Ifiwere cut and pasted parts from the old article, the new article has spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. It also has errors of style (incorrect capitalization of headers, for example). I realize that many of those errors can be corrected, but it's annoying to have to go in and clean up another editor's work when that editor is the cause of the problem. In any event, I am going to revert, and Ifiwere should not reimplement the changes without first obtaining a consensus for the radical reorganization of the material and the changes to the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's Ok, it was a propose page, Please don't insult my work! it is a work in progress. my page is simpler and can find information rather thank looking through four many paragraphs of mess, and i don't have to meet [User talk:Siawase|talk]]) concerns, :)If(i)Were 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifiwere (talk • contribs)

No one is insulting your work, but we are critiquing it, which is normal. The best thing to do is to learn from it, not to become upset about it. And in this kind of situation, if you want your work to be used, you do have to address any editor's legitimate concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You forgot about Donnie Darko. Linsday Lohan played a starring role in Donnie Darko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.80.201 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Awards

User:Ifiwere wants to remove the awards from the column in the filmography table. He has been reverted twice by two different editors (I'm one). Generally, awards are either listed in a separate table or in the filmography table. Thus, it's not uncommon for the awards to be listed in this way. What was slightly unorthodox was there was a separate awards section with a hatnote to the Lohan awards article, so I eliminated that section and moved the hatnote to the filmography section.

To me, the only issue at this point is whether we need the awards in the Lohan article and in the awards article. Usually, a hatnote is used because you have a little bit in the current article but it's more complete in the linked article. I don't think that's what's happening here. I think editors are trying to keep both articles complete, although the formatting of the awards article is nicer. Also, awards don't lend themselves to this sort of treatment - summary in one article and completeness in another - because what awards would you include as a summary? Just wins or what? It'd be a bit odd and not self-evident to the reader.

So, I suppose I'm leaning toward Ifiwere's position, but before making any changes, I'd like to hear what others think.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I went through the history of edits related to Lohan's awards.

Diffs and history 

• 14 December 2009‎ List of awards and nominations received by Lindsay Lohan created[4] a multitude of editors has expanded this list since it was created.
• 26 December 2009 first attempt at adding a bulleted plaintext list of awards to the article [5] (this re-appears in various formats during early 2010 but always ended up removed)
• 28 December 2009 I post a suggestion on talk to include the awards in the existing filmography table instead.[6] No replies. This is the only discussion I can find about awards in this article.
• 1 September 2010 List of awards and nominations received by Lindsay Lohan is linked from Lindsay Lohan [7] (notice this took almost a year after the list creation)
• 14 May 2011 an editor adds the currently existing awards to the filmography table.[8]
• 21 November 2011 Another editor expands this with a few addition awards[9] this is the only addition I can find

Most noteworthy I guess is there has been basically no collaboration in the editing between the separate List of awards and nominations received by Lindsay Lohan and the lists that were included in Lindsay Lohan. I think that explains why the list article was also listed in a separate section. There has also never been any real consensus forming discussion about this.

I would like it if we could have the most weighty awards listed in the filmography table. They give a quick at a glance idea to readers which of her films were the most critically/artistically successful. The seperate list article is fine, but is listed in order of awards, not films, and does not fill the quick overview function. Also, much fewer editors are likely to click through to that list compared to the ones who would look at the filmography in this article.

I don't think making an editorial judgment on which awards are the most weighty would be too difficult. There is already a pre-existing wider consensus if you look at which awards have been considered notable enough to have categories and navigation templates (Category:Film award winners, Category:Film award templates). (The Golden Raspberry Awards for example were deemed too light-weight to have either.)

I can however see that there are some reasonable arguments against the inclusion, so I'm not adamant about it. It might also be worth to mention that some awards (hopefully the most weighty) are also mentioned in the prose. This is also the only place they are properly sourced.

Also, before wholesale reinstating Ifiwere's edit I think we should also have a discussion about the "herself" credits he added in the same edit.[10] This has been discussed previously with only vague consensus outcome.[11][12] Might be best to create a separate section for that discussion though. Siawase (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

film

Film roles

Year	Title	Role	Notes
1998	The Parent Trap	Hallie Parker / Annie James
2000	Life-Size	Casey Stuart	Television film
2002	Get a Clue	Alexandra "Lexy" Gold	Disney Channel Original Movie
2003	Freaky Friday	Anna Coleman
2004	Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen	Mary Elizabeth "Lola" Cep
2004	Mean Girls	Cady Heron
2005	Herbie: Fully Loaded	Maggie Peyton
2005	My Scene Goes Hollywood	Herself	Voice only, Direct-to-video
2006	Just My Luck	Ashley Albright
2006	A Prairie Home Companion	Lola Johnson
2006	The Holiday	Herself	Cameo appearance
2006	Bobby	Diane Howser
2007	Georgia Rule	Rachel Wilcox
2007	I Know Who Killed Me	Aubrey Flemming / Dakota Moss
2008	Chapter 27	Jude Hanson
2009	Labor Pains	Thea Clayhill	ABC Family Original Movie
2010	Teenage Paparazzo	Herself	Documentary
2010	Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey	Herself	BBC Three documentary
2010	Machete	April Booth

Television

Year	Title	Role	Notes
1996-1997	Another World	Alexandra 'Alli' Fowler #3	Soap Opera (4 episodes)
2000	Bette	Rose Midler	"Pilot" (Season 1, Episode 1)
2004	King of the Hill	Jenny Medina	"Talking Shop" (Season 8, Episode 22)
2005	That '70s Show	Danielle	"Mother's Little Helper" (Season 7, Episode 7)
2008	Ugly Betty	Kimmie Keegan	"Jump" (Season 2, Episode 18, uncredited) "The Manhattan Project"(Season 3, Episode 1) "Granny Pants"(Season 3, Episode 5) "Ugly Berry"(Season 3, Episode 6)
2009	Project Runway	Herself	Welcome to Los Angeles! (Season 6, Episode 1)
2010	Double Exposure	Herself	I'm Gonna Smash the Ringflash! (Season 1, Episode 3)

this includes all Lohan's credits as well as all films, also awards/nominations have there own page for a reason! and that's why each film has it's own page, duh!

my decsion to edit the film page does NOT need to be approved or be discussed because it meets guidelines, sorry you can't control that ;) If(i)Were 23:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your concepts of how Wikipedia works are remarkably wrong. What that means is that even if you have a worthwhile contribution, some editors (me, for example) aren't going to want to listen to you. Siawase may be more patient with you than I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ifiwere, have you looked at Wikipedia core policies and guidelines? To give you some pointers on how they apply here: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Try to Assume good faith. We're all here trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if we have different views on how to do that. And since this is an open encyclopedia, no one can control what edits you choose to do, but likewise, you can't control what edits other people choose to do either. But edit warring to try to strong arm your preferred version into the article isn't allowed. You need to find consensus for the edits you want to make. In an article like this, it's usually easy to satisfy the core content policy of verifiability, because reliable sources are plentiful. But sources are so plentiful that we have to exclude the vast majority of material they cover, which is why the central issue here becomes not giving undue weight to any aspect of Lohan's life. This is part of Neutral point of view, another core content policy. You assertion that you can edit the filmography as you wish because your edits will always "meets guidelines" is actually false, because depending on what you include on exclude, it might give undue weight to different aspect of her work. Siawase (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me what was wrong with the header? (it included her success, personal life, accomplishments, music and fashion all in a neutral point of view. the filmography section, is being reverted withou merit. (it included all credited film roles). It seems that no one can edit without first being aproveed by Siawase or User:Bbb23. (something in which editors of wikipedia should not follow or allow) I am trying to contribute to this page and make it better, but it's been difficult with both of you; how about except of reverting without looking through, you better changes made or edit them (working together), again just making this page (and other pages) simpler, better, reliable and effective! - Thanks... Ifiwere (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The root problem of your edits to the lead is that they don't follow the Lead section guidelines, most crucially the lead should only contain a summary of what is already in the article, with the most careful eye possible towards accurate weighting. You introduced several interpretations of events that are are not found in the main prose, which runs into original research and verification problems. (Example: "Lohan gained further fame with ... Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" "which earned Lohan recognition as a Teen idol." "two driving under the influence (DUI) incidents, leading to numerous visitis to rehabilations facilities from 2007 to 2010") You run into undue weight by including things like Sevin Nyne in the lead. I do think it might be a good idea to include something regarding her branching out in 2008-2009, and the lead could stand to be a little bit longer in general, but Sevin Nyne is pretty much a blip on the radar even in that context.

Re: your edits "being reverted withou merit" and "reverting without looking through" both me and Bbb23 have written lengthy, detailed, policy based explanations about the problems with your edits. And we are trying to collaborate here. I mentioned above that I think we should discuss the "herself" credits before including them. I really do think that some "herself" credits might carry enough weight to be included in the filmography, and if we hash it out we may be able to find consensus on where to draw the line in the sand on it. In other words this was an invitation to collaboration and further discussion, but your only reaction was to post a revised version of the credits excluding most of the "herself" credits without further explanation. It's difficult to collaborate when you won't engage in a discussion of things like these.

Look, you haven't done anything wrong here, Wikipedia encourages being bold and just hopping in ignoring all rules to improve the encyclopedia. But the point is that being bold and ignoring all rules is encouraged exactly because other more experienced editors will jump in and revert your edits if they turn out to be problematic. In many cases Wikipedia articles are of such low quality (ie, the history of many articles is a variety of editors addding whatever tidbits they know on the subject in a haphazard fashion) that an inexperienced editor can make drastic improvements by just using common sense in restructuring and copy-editing the material. But a high profile, high quality article like this, which is based on the highest quality reliable sources, which has been thoroughly copy-edited and structured by several experiences editors, and has been built and confirmed to fulfill the good article criteria, with an eye towards one day reaching featured article quality, is a completely different ball of yarn. When you try to make several broad sweeping changes to an article like this, you're jumping in the deep end of the pool, and the learning curve will be very steep if you're not familiar with Wikipedia policy.

Your goal in making articles "simpler" and "effective" is understandable, but is actually not supported by core policies. Many subjects are complex and complicated, and the job of wikipedia editors is to summarize what reliable sources say on the subject, using a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV.) Excluding large chunks of what reliable sources say because it's not simple enough goes against NPOV. There can be a conflict here where some aspect is given undue weight because it's so complicated that it's difficult to explain briefly (this is part of why the 2010 section here has too much weight at the moment.) But the answer is to use editorial judgment and distill the text down to the most weighty details, not to just delete it because it's not simple. Take a look at some featured articles (which by consensus of several editors have been acknowleged as some of the best articles on Wikipedia.) Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson and Madonna are entertainers who like Lohan have done both acting and music work. Look at how they are written and structured (for example how they explain the interaction between their personal life and work, similar to what we are trying to do here) and how the prose is lengthy and often complex.

Apologies for how lengthy this came out, but I hope it at least shows that we do care about your edits and what you are saying. Siawase (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See, Ifiwere, I told you Siawase would be more patient with you than I. Please pay attention to what she said in her long post as she took a lot of trouble to give you very good advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The template i think works better with the awards listed on a differnt template, or with only awards won and not nominated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifiwere (talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my view the point of having the awards in the filmography table would be to associate them with the films, so putting them in a separate table would defeat that. Only listing awards won is a pretty good idea, but that's usually not how reliable sources list awards. They usually go by which awards are most notable. (for example, an academy award nomination would carry much more weight than winning a lesser known award.)

I had an idea that could solve the issues with what to include. The reason we keep having to discuss what to include is that we don't have any sources to tell us what to do here. But the article prose is sourced, so we could use the prose to determine what to include in the filmography. If it's in the prose and sourced, it gets included, whether it's an "herself" credit, an award, or whatever. Siawase (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

diffrent format

Bio
1. Early Life
2. Acting Career
3. Other ventures
Music
Fashion
4. Personal life
Family
Legal issues
5. Filmography
6. Discography
7. Awards and nominations
8. refrences
9. external links

i think this is bascially more clearer because she's known both for her acting and personal life, i think i think having legal troubles under personal life fits well. i think this dosn't mean its a negative article but more efficient and i just think it works wellIfiwere (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks very similar to your previous structure. What is different? Where within that would you cover the interplay between her personal life and her career? Siawase (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

well the legel issues would just cover the trouble with the law, probation violations, and her acting career will cover roles and films done, it could include how going to rehab affect her work Ifiwere (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So compared to your previous version, the new one would mention rehab affecting her work in the career section? Where would the bulk of the rehab coverage be? Siawase (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lindsay admits she's bisexual...

According to the Marie Claire website, there's an article (there's no date for the article) where she essentially admits to being bisexual:Lindsay Lohan: Bisexual, not lesbian. So that means probably could add the bisexual actor & bisexual musician tags to her page, as well as making note of that in the page. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The original article and quote that your link refers to are already included in this article. It has been discussed previously on this talk page, see archives: [13][14][15] Previous consensus has been that her exact statement of "Maybe. Yeah." in combination with "I don't want to classify myself." doesn't support an inclusion of bisexual categories per WP:BLPCAT. (By the way, the word "admit" in this context is problematic. If you want to be neutral it's better to use "came out" or even just "said" instead.) Siawase (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)