Talk:Lindsay Lohan

Funnyordie video

Let me try to prevent a problem before it occurs. Her recent Funnyordie video (parody of eHarmony) does not belong in this article. It is miniscule trivia in the context of her entire life and career. There is already a reference and link to it at Funny or Die. Don't add it here without consensus. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think given the level of attention the video ended up receiving from reliable sources it might deserve a a sentence or two here as part of her body of work. Just a brief description like "a spoof personal ad which was viewed 2.7 million times in less than a week". A full summary of the contents and/or quotes from the video is overboard in my opinion. I also think it belongs in the "Other work" section, not the "Personal life" section where it is right now. A few of the sources that covered the video: BBCAPReuters and MSNBC. The Telegraph ran an article which covers viewer numbers and some reactions. Siawase (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a brief mention is appropriate. I left that in the article, but removed the more detailed description. If someone wants to move it to a different section, I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with expanding it, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Ward3001 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the video as a satire is the ultimate acknowledgement of all the rumours, innuendos etc. in a tongue-in-cheek manner. It doesn't verify the rumours at all, it simply plays up to them, quite hilariously. I think these kinds of self-parodies can potentially be very insightful: without editorialising on the extent to which the video is autobiographically accurate, I think including it with some quotes is quite conducive to building comprehensive, factual biographical information. At the very least, the one-line summary on the current version of the page is fine. I just want to point out that it's fairly incorrect to reduce this major stunt as "trivia".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the entire context of her life and work, it's trivia; it happened to get some press attention. It doesn't need to be expanded. Read WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. It may seem like big stuff now because it's getting some attention. In a few months or a year, no one will care. Ward3001 (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to the other works section, added sources, changed the wording a bit to be closer to the sources, and added a sentence on reception/why the video is notable. The ref formatting is very crude, but I'll be back to fix it later. Any input is most welcome. Siawase (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alcoholism

I would be careful putting her in the "self-identifying alcoholics" category; going to a treatment program is not the same thing as publicly identifyuing as an alcoholic, which nothing cited in the article suggests she has done. Treybien 19:45 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually I would agree, but there is a direct quote by her in the article from a reliable source: "I am addicted to alcohol and drugs". I don't think we need to split hairs on whether "addicted to alcohol" is the same as "self-identifying alcoholic". Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The way the cat was added was a bit specious: [1][2] but like Ward says, that quote confirms it sufficiently. The somewhat random addition of her AA attendance wasn't really necessary. (Though to complicate matters, if I recall correctly, she denied being an alchoholic later on, after that statement was released.) Siawase (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Other Side

Lindsay will star in a new movie called "The Other Side".....filming starts in October.....[3]

Lindsay Lohan robbed

Lindsay Lohan's mansion was apparently broken into and an attempted robbery was made. Unfortunately the robbers found her house TOO MESSY so they didn't take anything. Since the New York Police was called on-scene, should this be included, or since they didn't take anything its not important enough to include? I heard it on Reuters too but here is a source (http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=7) Lindsaylohanfanfare (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not with that source, which describes itself as the "number one source for celebrity gossip". This can wait until it reaches the mainstream media, if it ever does. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. We don't have to rush to include every little tidbit of gossip as soon as it hits the tabloids. Ward3001 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If the report of the state of the Mansion is true seems Lindsey is in good company. When Gordon Brown the Prime Minister of Great Britain was her age the same type of burglary happened to his flat. On being called by the Police to attend the flat after the burglary the Officer who greeted him said; 'I'm afraid they have turned the place upside down Sir and made a real mess'. Gordon Brown looked around and said "no, no, Officer, it looks like this all the time". Let's not forget Lindsay is only a young girl.Johnwrd (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New picture

I was wondering if we could get a new main picture of Lindsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but since pictures of living people on wikipedia have to be under a free license, it's been hard to find pictures of Lohan that qualify. If you want to try looking, flickr is a pretty good place to start, some more info at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. Siawase (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Ashley92995 changed the header "Acting career" to "Modeling and Acting career". I reverted because right now it's misleading; the bulk of info about her modelling career is in the "Other works" section. When rearranging the article earlier to create the "Other work" section I left the her earliest modelling work in the acting section to try to somewhat keep a chronological order. Maybe it would be better to move that bit to the "Other work" section too, but I feel that would make the article harder to follow. As a note, the "Acting career" section was always named that, even though it used to include various other work.
On a related note, anyone got an opinion on whether we should include year spans (ie: 2003-2006: and 2007-Present:) to the headers in that section? Siawase (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Question/discrepancy

Noticed that a sentence says: In August 2007 Lohan entered Cirque Lodge Treatment Center in Sundance, Utah for a third stint at rehabilitation, staying until discharge on 5 October 2007.[151]

On August 23, 2007, Lohan pleaded guilty to cocaine use and driving under the influence and was sentenced to one day in jail and 10 days community service. She was also ordered to pay fines and complete an alcohol education program, and was placed on three years probation. “It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs,” Lohan said in a statement.[152] On November 15, 2007, Lohan served only 84 minutes in jail. A sheriff spokesman cited overcrowding and the nonviolent nature of the crime as reasons for the reduced sentence.[153]

If she entered a Treatment Center in Aug 2007 and was not discharged until Oct 2007, how could she have been guilty of cocaine and DUIs on Aug 23rd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madglee (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

She didn't commit the offense on August 23rd, her court date was August 23rd.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to clarify this by adding "appeared in court" or similar, but looking at the source [4] it was (of course) not that simple. There was a courtroom hearing and then a plea deal was worked out in chambers (so we don't know if she pleaded guilty in court, technically). In the interest of brevity I just let it be as is in the article. Siawase (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Twitter

Lindsay lohan has a certified Twitter account which has constant contact with many high listing celeb's aswell as many love notes to Samantha Ronson should this somehow be intergrated into the fullness of the article somehow as it pays reference to many issues that have gone on [5]Nbeau1989 (talk) 10:23pm, 27June 2009 (UTC)

"love notes" doesn't sound like something of much WP:WEIGHT. If some secondary WP:Reliable sources have talked about what Lohan has written on twitter it might be something to include. We're not exactly hurting for sources here, and WP:WEIGHT and the article growing too large are the biggest issues, no need to go dig around WP:Primary sources like twitter really. BTW, you say her account is "certified", but how is it certified? Her myspace is was linked from her official music site, but as far as I can see, her twitter is not linked from her myspace. Siawase (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the link that i provided when celeb's get a twitter there accounts show up as in-valid then up in the top right hand corner it says on ones that are offical of other celebs like Ashley tisdalePerez HiltonLady gagaRyan SearcrestSamantha Ronson The all have the Stamp up the top all certified and checked out and done for offical reasonsThats the badge i speak of Nbeau1989 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

She has stated that she is bisexual. So shouldn't the article come under LGBT actors/musicians/people categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.227.17 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See archived discussions here: [6][7][8] To attempt to summarize: the (not crystal clear) consensus was that her self-identification was not clear enough that the criteria required from policy WP:BLP#Categories was fulfilled: "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question". (and she never did "state that she is bisexual" or we wouldn't be having this conversaion.) Siawase (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned, the discussions are archived, but in a nutshell: The only quote suggesting a self-identification included the word, "maybe", and the only unambiguous statement she's made is that she doesn't want to label herself. So it falls far below the threshold. 209.90.133.41 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone's re-added the LGBT Actor category to the article. However, this was done without discussion, and seems to be a clear BLP violation. It was grossly inappropriate to re-add it without discussing here first. However, as the article is semi-protected, I'm unable to restore it to a version that doesn't violate BLP and consensus. Could someone please remove the category until consensus has been reached here? 209.90.135.121 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In this interview, Lohan spoke frankly about her relationship with Samantha Ronson, and when asked whether she would classify herself as bisexual, answered: "Maybe. Yeah."

Perhaps more importantly, I do not think it is appropriate to assert that people who prefer not to label their sexuality should be "barred from entering" the LGBT club. Plenty of queer people eschew labels for personal and/or political reasons. Lohan went public about her same-sex relationship; I think that is enough. Whatever404 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that your quote includes the word, "maybe". Our BLP policy doesn't even permit you to classify them as LGBT unless they publicly self-identify. "Maybe" is not an unambiguous self-identification. On the other hand, directly stating "I don't want to classify myself" makes it very clear that she isn't publicly self-identifying as such.

It doesn't matter what everybody thinks, even if they're right. All that matters, as far as BLP policy is concerned, is how they unambiguously self-identify. If you have a problem with that, then you need to petition to change the policy first, rather than simply ignoring BLP when it isn't convenient.

You're right: sometimes people choose to avoid 'coming out' for personal or political reasons. But BLP doesn't state, "don't 'out' people... unless you disapprove of their reasons for not self-outing". 209.90.135.121 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point: I am not talking about "people [who] choose to avoid coming out". I am pointing out, just as others did here, that there are people in the world who are out, who are not closeted in any respect, who do not identify with any particular label for their sexuality. What I am saying is that it is not necessary to someone to say "I am [label]" in order for them to be LGBT. Lohan was in a widely-publicized same-sex relationship and discussed her relationship openly. As such, she belongs in the general LGBT categories. Whatever404 (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumored Singles

There is a video on YouTube titled "wathcin' me" which features a rapper and a demo voice, which is alleged to be a demo for Lindsay Lohan. Also there is a demo by Kevin Rudolf, also rumored to be Lohan. Should this be added to the page? 68.43.83.93 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube videos are effectively either self-published or (even worse) copyright violations, with rare exceptions. Wait for a strong source—one will come around, we don't need to break news—and remember that she lives, breathes, and has lawyers. :) --an odd name 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point except for the last one. I think it would be positive for her to see something about leaked tracks and release those tracks. If I'm not mistaken, Bossy was leaked on a YouTube video. 68.43.83.93 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

there is another youtube video titled"Guitly a new lindsay lohan single" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasha Kay Kennedy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)