Talk:Lindsay Lohan

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)

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[1] bbc[2] and ap[3][4] 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.[5] 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)

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,[6] it's registered to a law firm that represents several other showbusiness clients.[7] 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)