Talk:Lindsay Lohan

So....Playboy

News today from various sources is that she's agreed to $750k-$1m to pose nude for Playboy. Never having added this sort of news to an article (I tend to stick to TV/movie pages and the like) I'm having a hard time figuring out how to write such an addition tactfully. Additionally, is it new- or sub-section worthy, or just something we put under the 2010- Present section of the article? DigiFluid (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth of a new section at all. If anything it'd go under the 2010- Present section. Until she actually dose the shoot or confirms the agreement I don't think it should be added because until then it's just speculation. Ryvenn (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and all, there's no reason for us to rush here. If it's ever actually done and published we can include it, but until then we can wait. Also, including something like this "tactfully" shouldn't be a problem as long as we have high quality sources (look at the way her topless Monroe shoot is covered in the article.) And if we don't have high quality sources it shouldn't be included. Siawase (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Given her less-than-reliable career in recent years, I suppose I'd agree that it's worth holding off on adding until the shoot actually happens and/or is published. That said, I inquired about the creation of a new section only really because it's a step outside of her career thus far. Child actor, actress as an adult, product modeling, art modeling and now apparently modeling for a men's adult magazine. I can see both sides of the coin here so I'm not really invested in either position. I just thought it was maybe worth considering. DigiFluid (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Even though it's different from her career thus-far, it'd still be considered part of her life, right? If she does become a Playmate (as a career) I'm not sure how we'd integrate that into the article: it'd probably be worthy of a new section then, but I'll have to look around at a few other articles before I can give you a solid opinion. When/if credible sources appear, I think it'd be best to put it in the 2010 section until further information about whether posing will be a regular thing for her becomes available. It's definitely worth considering and I hope it didn't seem like I was shooting down your idea, as that's not what I meant to do. Ryvenn (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The way the article is structured now none of her individual activities get separate sections, but everything is organized chronologically. I would strongly suggest keeping this structure as is, to keep material in context and avoid undue weight issues. See previous discussions: [1][2] And she has previously done a lot of modelling, including sexually suggestive shoots and various states of undress, so Playboy wouldn't be a huge game changer. It can be incorporated the same way as all the other modelling material. Again, look at the Monroe shoot coverage in the 2008 section. Siawase (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to keep repeating yourself, I said I wasn't married to the idea, just wondering about it. On another note, this is no longer rumour. It's been confirmed by numerous news outlets, as well as by the Lindsay Lohan camp. According to a number of news sources, the photo shoot finished up today. It might be worth a brief mention in the article now that she's done the work, with a follow-up edit later on when it's either published or blocked from being published if she turns her lawyers on Playboy. DigiFluid (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The only source I can find who says they confirmed anything is X17, who say they talked to Dina Lohan.[3] Not normally a source I'd jump to use in a blp. Playboy and Lohan's official rep are both doing a "no comment."[4][5] One E!Online source said the shoot would be "non-nude"[6] and "One source told Reuters the deal was not yet final"[7] The other coverage I'm finding is either repeats of the above or "according to TMZ" which is definitely a source to be avoided, even if other outlets repeat their stories. Siawase (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to find this on BBC, or CNN, or other REAL news sources. It's celebrity news and most reputable news outlets have done away with entertainment news. Partially out of news agency respectability, partially because they can't compete with the big entertainment/celebrity news sites out there--including TMZ and the like. These sites report on what most of us consider 'fluff' news, but they DO report on it so there's no reason to dismiss them out of hand.

But to continue on the topic at hand, you can find the news about this at most 'entertainment-oriented' news sites anyway. Heck, Lohan was even granted a delay in her recent prison sentencing so that she can finish the photo shoot. [8] DigiFluid (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BBC[9] and CNN[10] covered Lohan yesterday. But they did not mention anything about Playboy, which is a pretty strong indication that neither should we, yet.

"Lohan was even granted a delay in her recent prison sentencing so that she can finish the photo shoot." Again, this originates with TMZ, who say they have an unnamed source. A very different sourcing situation from if say, the judge or Lohan's lawyer had acknowledged officially. Siawase (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream media has finally caught up with what's been generally known for two weeks now. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/showbiz/lindsay-lohan-playboy/?hpt=hp_c3 DigiFluid (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the CNN story above, ABC News and New York Daily News have also covered the story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And Reuters. Both Lindsey Lohan's and Playboy's spokes people have confirmed this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the article now that it has been confirmed by both Playboy and Lohan's rep. Also added a bit from Hugh Hefner where he describes the shoot.[11]

DigiFluid: it's not that the mainstream media "caught up", but that Lohan's rep and Playboy confirmed it officially, and highly reliable sources reported on that. It's the difference between speculation/rumor and confirmed fact. Siawase (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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: [12][13] 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)

Edit request on 9 December 2011

In the last sentence of the section "2010-present", "in first issue" should be changed to "in the first issue".

Telrod (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2011 (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: [14] 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)