Talk:Lindsay Lohan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Lindsay Lohan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Lindsay Lohan has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2006.

Inconceivable removed[edit]

Lohan was set to start filming Inconceivable in March. It's now July and nothing has been heard of it since the January announcement, and she is working on other projects now. As such, I'm doing a WP:BOLD removal.(diff) If the project is picked up again down the road, we can re-add it then. Siawase (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

¶ With reference to MACHETE, a careful look at her supposed nude scenes (yes, I stopped the image on my TV) shows that a body double was used; whenever "Lohan" is shown nude, the girl's face is hidden and the hair doesn't quite match. Sussmanbern (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Layout changes[edit]

I reverted the change of section headers here (diff) but my revert was reverted (diff.) The changed layout gives the impression that aside from the "early life" section the rest of the prose only speaks about her professional life, which is entirely incorrect, since personal life material is interspersed in the entire chronological prose of the article. Also, we could perhaps wait until her stage show has actually opened before adding it to the header, see WP:CRYSTAL. We could even wait until we have some idea of what lasting career impact it will have. Siawase (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that her personal and professional life are combined. I feel like we should separate the two and create new sections that cover her personal life and public image. As for her theatre debut, the show opened on September 24. DantODB (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Her personal and professional lives are deeply intertwined, hence why they're told as one chronological narrative here. Previous attempts at separating the two have not gone well, including causing WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues, see previous discussions here [1] and here [2]. The show didn't actually open on the 24th, critics just reviewed a preview, not something they usually do, see: [3][4] Siawase (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the organization of the article is confusing. Everyone's personal and professional life are "intertwined." That is not a reason to make it difficult to read about one or the other in an encyclopedia, and not have to read everything just to find out why she is doing community service now, or read about her career without having to wade through her mistakes. I would like to take a stab at reorganizing, but I see the page is protected. What will I need to do to have free access. Or has it already been decided to leave the article as is? Let me know if you (as a group?) want me to separate out the personal from the professional, and I'll have a go at it.Donna Helene (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wanting to "read about her career without having to wade through her mistakes" frankly sounds like you want to create a white-washed career section that would go completely against WP:NPOV. A career section would have to include career downfalls as well as successes, and excising the reasons for those downfalls when they constitute "mistakes" sounds like a terrible idea. Take one of the earliest examples:

During filming in 2006, Lohan was hospitalized, her representative saying "she was overheated and dehydrated."[86] At the time Lohan was going through a breakup with Hard Rock Cafe heir Harry Morton which contributed to her problems on the set, according to Allure.[59][87] In a letter that was made public, studio executive James G. Robinson called Lohan "irresponsible and unprofessional." He mentioned "various late arrivals and absences from the set" and said that "we are well aware that your ongoing all night heavy partying is the real reason for your so-called 'exhaustion'."[88]

Now should this go in a "personal life" section because her health and recreational activities are personal issues and you don't want to read about her mistakes in a career section? That doesn't sound appropriate at all since all of it relates directly to her career. Next section:

In early January 2007, production on the film I Know Who Killed Me was put on hold when Lohan underwent appendix surgery.[92][93][94] Later in the month, Lohan admitted herself to the Wonderland Center rehabilitation facility for a 30-day stay.[95][96] During the stay she continued shooting the film, returning to the facility at night.[97][98]

Now what about this? Appendix surgery and rehab are clearly a personal issues, so should they just get moved to a personal life section? Should the reason for the appendix surgery inclusion (it affected filming) be mentioned in the personal life section or not? Should the filming being put on hold be mentioned in the career section without explaining why?

The article goes on with similar issues cropping up again and again. She lost multiple roles because of health issues, should the health issues be moved to a personal section and the roles lost be in a career section without explaining why she lost them? She lost one role and couldn't participate in promoting another because of DUIs and rehab, do we pretend those causes for career disruption didn't exist in the career section? Or when a bench warrant was issued while she was travelling for work, should a personal life section ignore why she was travelling because that belongs in the career section? Or when she couldn't promote a film because of rehab/legal issues? Or when she was driving to set and got in a car accident which delayed production and got her in legal trouble? These issues are what I mean by deeply intertwined and is why previous attempts at splitting up the article has been a mess just editorially speaking, and also why they have been plagued by WP:NPOV/WP:BLP issues, either placing too much emphasis on her personal troubles by giving them their own sections, and/or creating white-washed disjointed career sections.

If you read the previous discussions I linked above, [5][6] you can see that long standing consensus is that splitting out her personal life is a bad idea. I would suggest that if you want to see a consensus change, the best way would probably be for you to create a draft in your userspace that addresses the concerns raised above and in the previous discussions, both editorial and policy concerns, like issues related to WP:NPOV/WP:BLP. Siawase (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tag as "very long"?[edit]

I have done some cleanups, but I'm also irritated by inconvenient reading during editing. Also, I am torn between breaking lines within templates and leaving lines unbroken. If the article can't be tagged as such, what else can we do? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed a couple of sentences of material that I consider WP:UNDUE (we have trimmed similar material previously.) (diff) Other than that, you're going to have to give more concrete suggestions. If you look at guidelines, the readable prose portion of this article is actually on the shorter end, see Wikipedia:Article size. We discussed this in January 2013 [7] and the prose length has not grown significantly since. It was 29 kB (4865 words) then and as of right now it's 29 kB (4970 words). Siawase (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
What about reference templates? They appear not easy to read. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you. This article is using the same standard reference templates as most Wikipedia articles. Siawase (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What doesn't help is that the article suffers from severe WP:REFBLOAT. Simple statements that are easily verified and uncontroversial do not need three references. But this happens throughout the article, cluttering it with reference numbers. --Cornellier (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Much of this article is potentially controversial material, fraught with potential WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues, so there is a need for solid sourcing beyond a single reference point in many cases. But in the legal issues material where there are more than three references per sentence, it's the result of trimming back and summarizing events that were added in excruciating detail using news reports as they were ongoing. It's not, as WP:REFBLOAT alludes to, the result of editors deliberately adding all those references at once, to push some POV or other. Someone just needs to read through the references to see if the information in the article can be adequately verified by fewer sources, but that is painstaking, time consuming work and no one has gotten around to doing it. Previous discussion about this: [8] [9] Siawase (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So in the interest in brevity, I'm continuing the ongoing, careful trimming back of legal issues. I did a WP:BOLD removal of some of the less WP:WEIGHTy material, including when she was being monitored for substance abuse (in both cases she failed tests, so it's kind of redundant anyway) and when her probation switched over from supervised to informal. These are things that were the latest and breaking and probably seemed like important updates at the time they were added, but are now basically stale WP:RECENTISM. (diff) Siawase (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Siawase. Just a simple example from the top of the article, the statement "Both of Lohan's parents are of Irish and Italian descent" does not and never did need more than one ref., if it even needs one. But I get it, it's work trawling through and trimming them down. --Cornellier (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Ethnic background/heritage is one of those potentially controversial things that definitely needs solid sourcing. It's also one of those things that end up in categories and needs to have reliable sources for that purpose, see WP:BLPCAT. That said, those two sources actually look like they're borderline WP:RS at best, especially for WP:BLP sensitive material. So I trimmed it back to a simpler wording, that can be verified by the reference already at the end of the sentence. (diff) Siawase (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Much better. Another example, the first sentence in the Early life section: "Lindsay Dee Lohan was born on July 2, 1986, in New York City, and grew up in Merrick and Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island, New York." This sentence has four references to three different sources, none of which even backs up the statement about where she grew up. As it stands the sentence could be edited to "Lindsay Dee Lohan was born on July 2, 1986, in New York City." with no reference as no-one's going to dispute this. --Cornellier (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The reference right next to her name is due to an old on-going controversy and slow edit war over her middle name. It was discussed years ago on the talk page[10][11] but since then people come across information about her middle name that looks reliable to them and change the article in good faith. Why there is a duplicate reference next to her date of birth I have no idea. And actually as of before my edit[12] ref 3 (CNN) does contain the sentence "Lindsay Morgan Lohan's life began on July 2nd, 1986. Though she was born in New York City, she was raised in the upper middle class Long Island town of Cold Spring Harbor." (see what I mean about the middle name? lol) so that verifies the Cold Spring Harbor part. Ref 4 (NY Times) looks like someone googled "lohan merrick" and added the first reference they found. Actually ref 7 goes into some detail to explain that she moved back and forth between Cold Spring Harbor and Merrick growing up, so that could be used to verify both of those (but not the middle name or her being born in New York City.) Also, I'm pretty sure if you remove the mentions of Cold Spring Harbor and Merrick, someone will come along and re-add them with whatever references they come across at that time (just re: your statement that removing them would go undisputed.) Anyway, cleaned up based on that: (diff) Siawase (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Separating career and personal life sections to create less lengthy paragraphs[edit]

Considering how long every section is, I think it might be wise to shorten the "Life and career section" by making a personal life section

Middle name[edit]

Not sure if this has been discussed in the talk archives, and don't really feel up to delving through 18 pages of them. While it seems to be fairly uncontested her middle name at birth was Dee, I can't find any reliable source that Morgan was ever more than a briefly used stage middle name. When she was arrested in 2007 her documents still noted Dee as her middle name, again in a court brief.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)