Talk:Lindsay Lohan

Lindsay's offical website

isin't her website llrocks.com?

Just change her picture man!

Her main pic isn't so cool. It's been there for a while now it should be changed.

You find us one that isn't copyrighted and we might consider it. Ward3001 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see whats wrong with it either. She's actually posing for a photograph. Its not like some blurry concert photo where she's looking away.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Morning America

Why no mention of her obvious lip synching during her "live" performance on Good Morning America?

Because everybody does it sometimes and it's a non-issue? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If Ms. Lohan was a true singer, she wouldn't lip sync, but she's just a pop star. Not a good one at that!

SHE IS NOT WHAT SHE REALLY IS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.15.86 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a non-issue, and not everybody does it. That's why it stands out I when people do it. They're supposed to be able to sing, and this was a live performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.202 (talk • contribs)

Okay, since an intentionally humorous generality was taken seriously, more people do it than you'll ever know. Still, the utter lack of any notability is only half the issue; her people said she was singing along to a voice track because she had a sore throat; unless you can provide published proof of a lip sync, its addition also violates no original research. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding, aren't you? At one point she's not even singing, her mouth is closed, and yet the lyrics can still be heard. Given that "more people than [I'll] ever know" lip-sync live, why would her publicists feel the need to concoct laughable stories to deny the accusations? Anyway, surely something that you can see with your own eye's doesn't fall under the category of original research? But a horrible thing happened to her,She was arrested for DRUNK DRIVING and have DRUGS in that car. She may be sent to prison or Let go with a "large" fine.

The story was in a ton of tabloids - if I can provide links, will it then be OK to include it? Actually, I remember that you think such sources are not sufficiently reliable to be included (as you so persuasively argued in the upskirt section above). Of course, if we applied that measure to the current information in the article, there might be a comparative dearth of information on this page. Not too many broadsheets in that ol' reference list. Could it be that you're choosing to apply your "notability", and "reliability" arguments to selectively exclude information that you perceive to be negative? Wait - how uncharitable of me. CnsBiol 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and PS. The "intentionally humorous" sarcasm in the previous statement WAS meant to be taken seriously. You see, most people add statements to discussion pages because they actually want to get some point across, not just have a little condescending laugh to themselves.CnsBiol 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not laughing. I've removed more data from this article—positive and negative—than you'll ever add. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be the [Wikipedia: I was here first—I don't have to answer your arguments with more than one word, you noob] rule, I take it? I think your answers tend towards the dismissive, as evidenced by the first one in this string.CnsBiol 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the we've-already-dealt-with-this-non-issue-argument, even by people who assume good faith better than do you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How am I to interpret your original reply in this string in good faith? Your reply was terse, dismissive, and unreferenced. Perhaps I've read the definition of cruft a little closer than you. From WP:CRUFT: "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such nonsense, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." This would pretty adequately sum up the intent of your first reply, no?

Finally, in relation to your last comment, I've scanned through the talk archives, and couldn't find where the lip-syncing issue has been previously dealt with. CnsBiol 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you've completely glossed over "Okay, since an intentionally humorous generality was taken seriously ..." immediately following; nevertheless, my initial reply was correct.

"This would pretty adequately sum up the intent of your first reply, no?" You're correct: no.

As for the archives, it was there last time I looked...

The only lack of WP:AGF within this "conversation" is yours; my intent is and has always been the maintenance of Lindsay Lohan as a Featured article—an article to which all others aspire, creating a proper biography which handles both the positives and negatives of a subject's life succinctly and without original research and non-notable data as demanded by policy (biographies of living persons specifically states that we maintain "a degree of sensitivity"). Your glib ad hominems do nothing to take away from the fact that this episode fails the "does anyone care" test and, therefore, is not notable. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My ad hominems? May I quote: "I've removed more data from this article—positive and negative—than you'll ever add." Nonetheless, I shall make my case for the inclusion of the lip-syncing event in Lohan's bio clear.

Coming from an acting background, Lohan faces the common perception that she does not actually have any singing talent, and that her music career is more of a cynical ploy by an opportunistic manager. Her lip-syncing on GMA was therefore a blow to her credibility as a singer.

I'm going to ignore your continued statements about "data", because WP:CRUFT is not a policy or guideline, and anyway, expressly states that cruft is not a reason for omission, but really refers to non-notability. Is the lip-syncing event notable? You can't argue that the lip-syncing event didn't occur, as it was caught on film. Your argument must therefore surround whether the event was worthy of being noted. It would seem from the notability criteria that several independent sources constitute notability. Here are two: [1] and [2]. Here is the original video [3].

Her PR people have issued denials, which can be included. But not in the usual way, where we say that she "allegedly" lip-synced. Because she did lip-sync.

Any chance of a pointer to the place in the archive where the lip-syncing issue was previously dealt with? CnsBiol 03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where it went.

As I recall, there actually were two reasons this data was excluded: one, unless someone else did the singing on her album (a la Milli Vanilli), the event is not notable, plain and simple (in fact, it epitomizes WP:NOTNEWS, a policy/guideline proposal); two, her publicist said she was singing to a voice track (sore throat, or something similar), so the article cannot say she was lip-syncing as it is not necessarily factual.

Meantime, I continue to have difficulties with the concept that the author of "would her publicists feel the need to concoct laughable stories" and "surely something that you can see with your own [eyes]" (Really? You can conclusively prove lip-syncing vs. singing to a voice track?) would deign to discuss neutrality with me; anything of similar tone added to the article would be nuked on sight by any one of dozens of editors.RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't notable. It's not really up to any of the contributors to wikipedia. From WP:N "The primary notability guideline for inclusion of articles on Wikipedia states that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I offered two. Sure, they're not high-brow publications, but LL isn't a high-brow subject. Your continued claims of WP:NOTNEWS therefore confuse me.

title]]]]''''''''''''''''''''''