Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 18

To keep track: I've gone through and repaired (and in one case eliminated) the links that were marked dead. I also did a runthrough with checklinks[7] and fixed any dead links found through that. Also did some spot checking focusing on material that can only be verified through the www, and trying to make sure the urls are archived somewhere (either webcite or archive.org.) Like I mentioned above, news reports, newspapers in particular, are less crucial as they should remain available through various archives.

I also ran the article through the comb feature on webcite, but looking at their archives, I think someone (probably Tenebrae) already did that back in June. But at least this should have archived any links added since. Siawase (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This page did not add additional detail about her 2007 cocaine arrest. That night she finished off a bottle of Jack Daniels, and jumped in an SUV with her friends (but not before running over someones foot).

While drunk and stoned on cocaine she chased her former assistant and the assistant's mother around the neighborhood. A frantic call was placed to 911 while the car chase was on, leading to Lohans arrest and the drugs being found.

The friend with the broken foot was treated at a local hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.137.99 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A few of your details are off, but that's roughly accurate. Previous consensus going back a few years (this was 5 years ago after all) has been to not include that level of detail, per

WP:WEIGHT. Right now the article dedicates more words to describing her two 2007 DUIs than it does to describing Mean Girls, one of the main reasons her DUIs are of public interest in the first place. Work remains on the DUI material, but it's more about wittling things down to the bare essentials than expanding on the background drama. Siawase (talk

) 09:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

68.83.150.189 (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC) she will appear in scary movie 5

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And please indicate the exact wording you want added, and where it should go. Rivertorch (talk

) 10:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the 2010- prose section and shouldn't be included in the filmography before it goes into production. Siawase (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. Unregistered editor: disregard what I said above. The answer is "no"; wait till they start to make the movie. Rivertorch (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They already started and there are pictures all over blogs in order to prove she's there filming her scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.192.6 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

She filmed her scenes for the film this past week.

Bill Harris of QMI Agency provided a neutral review that summed up some of the other negative reviews of her work on Liz & Dick that may be worth mentioning here, as it seems concentration as been on the negative feedback to her role. The highlights of his review were: "Some of my fellow critics have been venomous in their reviews of Lindsay Lohan's performance in the made-for-TV movie Liz & Dick...Newsflash: Lindsay Lohan never has been Meryl Streep.... Lohan's performance as Elizabeth Taylor in Liz & Dick isn't going to win awards, but it's not the worst thing ever...By the way, do you know who also wasn't Meryl Streep? Elizabeth Taylor....Liz & Dick shines a light on two famous people who brought out both the best and the worst of each other. Whenever Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor were together, either on screen or off, every single person in their vicinity was watching them at all times. That claustrophobic atmosphere is recreated in Liz & Dick by way of Lohan and Bowler being in practically every scene....Whether Liz & Dick works for you remains to be seen. I think Grant Bowler does a terrific job. And Lindsay Lohan? Well, at least keep your expectations realistic, okay?"

The url for the entire review is http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/23/lindsay-lohan-not-terrible-in-liz--dick

A couple of salient points that resonate in his review are reminders that Elizabeth Taylor herself was criticized for her acting skills - so expecting huge gravitas from Lohan in her attempts to portray what was essentially a glorified "B" actress may be just looking for excuses to criticize (though having seen some of the work, there is also no doubt legitimate reason to pan the film), but moreover, Harris' conclusion about what did one really expect going in to such a film. There may be some difficulty separating the baggage from the actress at this point, which I think Harris does a good job of suggesting and may be worth quoting him on these suggestions.

For what it is worth.68.144.172.8 (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The article text currently reads:

Reviews of Lohan's performance in the film were largely, but not unanimously, negative. The Hollywood Reporter said she was "woeful" while Variety called her "adequate".[8][9]

This is sourced to two articles which gives summaries/overviews of reviews, both of which say the same thing as the article text here: that reviews were mostly negative, but not uniformly so. This seems to be pretty much what you want to convey also? To add any lengthier positive quotes regarding Lohan's performance to the current text would give

undue weight to a positive POV, since after all, most reviews were negative, and the weight we give each POV should reflect the POV of all significant sources. Siawase (talk

) 18:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at the talk page archives? This has been discussed before several times, and there are one or two drafts attempting restructuring similar to what you're suggesting, and none of them turned out more comprehensive than what we have now. There are also

undue weight and should be trimmed down and condensed to lend it less weight, not broken out to a separate section to lend it even more weight. Siawase (talk

) 01:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

She has a facebook profile with the name Lindsey, and lacks one with Lindsay.. And everywhere else including Wikipedia and such, she is known as Lindsay?? Could the world be so uncaring and confused about her as to overlook the spelling of her name or is the Facebook entry wrong?--172.5.191.180 (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're ever skeptical about something you find on wikipedia (including major aspects like the name of the article/subject) scroll down to the references section and see if you can find any reliable sources there that verify the information. In this case you can see sources like NY Times and CNN spelling her name with an "a" several times over the years. Most likely, the facebook you found belongs to someone else. Lohan does have an official verified twitter account at https://twitter.com/lindsaylohan. Siawase (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Might want to think about re-naming this section. She appeared on Saturday Night Live in March, Glee in May, Liz & Dick in November, and Anger Management this April. But she also appeared in the art film First Point, the long-in-the-making spoof InAPPropriate Comedy, cameo in the franchise sequel Scary Movie 5, and a lead role in a heavily publicized independent film The Canyons. Also, her role as the Surfer in First Point directed by Richard Phillips should be noted in her filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.31.181 (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that the 2012 header isn't necessary. Remove it and merge the section with the section above. If the resulting section comes out too long and unwieldy it's because it needs to be trimmed down. The peak of her career was in 2003-2005 but the later years are given more length/weight due to apparent

WP:RECENTISM. Siawase (talk

) 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sca (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the best written and shortest article I have seen for a pop-culture personally, actually. What sort of thing would need to be removed? It covers all the basic facts without going too much into detail.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have trouble with the notion that Ms. Lohan's bio merits, for one example, approximately 1,000 more words than that of the current German chancellor, Angela Merkel — certainly one of the world's leading political figures (and a woman too).

I guess I'd suggest trimming the info about Ms. Lohan's legal issues. But she's outside my area of knowledge. If 5,000 words is widely considered "concise" for such personalities, c'est la vie. I just didn't like being summarily censored off the page.

Sca (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sca, thank you for posting your concerns in a more constructive manner. I suggested on your talk page that you look at

blp

talk page. To address the Merkel comparison, the goal of Wikipedia is to write articles as full and comprehensive as possible on all notable subjects. There is no ranking of which articles should be shorter or longer. If the Merkel article is too short, the remedy is to make that article more comprehensive.

Regarding this article specifically, I would like to trim some of details from the legal issues. There are so many specific dates and numbers piled on top of each other that they don't really contribute to a comprehensive understanding. But (and I think this is a concern shared by most regular editors of this article) there is a real risk of trimming the legal issues too far and ending up with a whitewashed biography.

Also, I actually agree that the FA ideal is a bit on the long and dense side, in particular, as you said, from the point of view of someone previously unfamiliar with the subject. One of the best tools we have to make articles more quickly accessible is the

lead, and it is vitally important that it really does provide an executive summary. The lead of this article is functional, but it could still be improved further. Any input on the lead here is very welcome, in particular from editors with fresh eyes. Siawase (talk

) 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the lead on this article is concerned — for some reason traditionally spelled "lede" in U.S. journalism circles — by newspaper standards it’s about four times too long.

Now I see that the article on

Obama

gets! In my view, such prolixity on behalf of entertainers reduces Wiki's credibility.

To state the case one last time, the length of an article usually should bear a direct relationship to the importance or significance of the person or topic in the grand scheme of things. But this seems a battle lost long ago.

Adieu.

Sca (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that the fact that Beyonce has more words than Obama means nothing, right? Wikipedia isn't here to write more or less about people based on their occupation.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, you might want to realize that many additional articles on Obama (such as his early life, etc) have their own articles. Thus, they can be covered there and summarized here. There's no other article to put Lindsay's legal issues in. They are directly relevant to her life, so they stay. It appears to me as if you just want them remove because they look "bad". That appears to be the only logical reason to me...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not how I read his comments. I feel the same frustration when I look at the amount of energy people devote to writing about celebrities: mountains and mountains of text about people that aren't very important. Doesn't keep me up nights, though. If people really want to spend their lives researching pop music stars to the point where they can document how often they wear individual outfits while on tour, I can't see how it does me any substantial harm.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering the thing the user suggested being cut out was specifically her legal troubles, that is how it appears to me. I do agree with you, but this article is not overboard what-so-ever. It covers the most important details of her life and her career.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"I feel the same frustration when I look at the amount of energy people devote to writing about celebrities" -- The obviously good way to deal with such frustration is to devote energy to writing about the subjects that one feels are neglected. The obviously bad way is to spend large amounts of energy complaining about other editors expending energy toward Wikipedia content. Nor is talk of newspaper standards of any value here, nor making poorly thought out assertions such as that the length of articles should be proportional to "significance ... in the grand scheme of things", as if such a scale were even possible. Each Wikipedia article should be as good as editors can make it, and other articles are irrelevant beyond what guidance their content provides to improving the one at hand. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"means nothing" — Absurd. Sca (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So you think because Obama is the president of the United States he deserves a bigger sized article than Beyonce? Mind you, he has about 10 other articles speaking of his life and career, whereas Beyonce only has one? Now, that is absurd.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So you think because Obama is the president of the United States he deserves a bigger sized article than Beyonce?

— Yes. Sca (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you are not aware how Wikipedia works, as the user stated below this comment.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment. Sca (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is specifically for improvement of this article; these comments here do nothing to contribute to that ... quite the contrary. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading this claim, I am inclined to think that

²¹

03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sca's comment on the lead here, looking at the

On Length of Article and things pertaining to: It is possible that we should move the topic away from the sheer mass or length of the article and focus on whether there is any real, useful substance? This is reference material, yes? It is sometimes easy to get lost in minutiae when recording present events i.e. she turned left, pivoting from her left foot and walked ten paces thusly: first her right leg swung forward and her foot was placed on the ground, the heel and then following in sequence the toe or ball of the foot. Once this action was completed and indeed simultaneous to the end of this action her left leg swung forward, etc. Ugh. Terrible. It's thorough, complete, and usually completely unnecessary. Just a though. Thanks. Peace. Ed42311 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant details?

I addressed length issues months back. While there were huge improvements, I don't believe that a Good Article can be this BIG. I can't find topics irrelevant... yet. There might be some irrelevant details on revelant subtopics of the celebrity, for whom I no longer care. Unfortunately, information about her is too sad and pathetic, yet too notable to be trimmed down. I wonder if we can invite the celebrity for an interview with Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can't find information to cut, how is it supposed to be? I'm curious to where there is a limit on how much kb a good article has to be. The only thing I can think of is splitting her filmography into a separate article, ala Jennifer Lopez filmography, Christian Bale filmography and the likes. Lindsay's had a busy life, so therefore, her article represents such.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

All right. Her personal life is growing more central in the main article, so splitting her filmography is more logical than splitting her personal life. That way, we can browse sections and subpages more easily than attempt to read the WHOLE page. --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"I no longer care. Unfortunately, information about her is too sad and pathetic" ... talk about irrelevant ... these opinions and judgments are certainly that. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lohan's legal and drug abuse issues have garnered enough public attention to merit their own section, and yet they are oddly buried in a section of the article about one of her movies. This could just be a random editing oversight, but could also easily look like the article is being manipulated. In any case, a section on her legal and substance abuse difficulties should have it's own separate heading, although balance and journalistic fairness should govern it's creation and editing. 208.54.86.231 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Lohan's issues in her personal life are mentioned both in the lead and in headers. That's hardly buried. Previous consensus is that splitting out her personal life is a bad idea (see talk page archives [10] and [11]) because of

WP:BLP concerns and because her career and personal life are so entangled that it's not really editorially sound to try to separate them. Siawase (talk

) 19:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't added the "split" tag yet. Back to the point, I've heard a suggestion that, in order to condense size, Lohan's filmography should be split from main article. Thoughts? Extended duration for more talk. --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment First, again, this article is not long enough that anything needs to be removed simply on the basis of size. The vast majority of
  featured articles are much longer than this article, and they are considered better for it. Second, I have no issues with a separate filmography that covers more than can be included in the filmography here. But as noted above, the "too long" issue is really more of an issue of the prose not being quickly accessible. But the lead and filmography/discography are ways in which readers can get a quick overview. And completely deleting the filmography here would just make the issue of quick access worse, not better. I'd much prefer if we could handle the filmography similar to how we handled the awards, even if there is a more exhaustive list elsewhere, we can still retain the most notable entries here, as a service to readers. Siawase (talk
  ) 08:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think the article is too long, and do not feel her filmography justifies its own article. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. If there comes an agreement here to create
  Lindsay Lohan filmography, contact me and I'll be the one to do it. I started and got Jennifer Lopez filmography to FL status, so I am very familiar with what needs to be done. Also note how the Jennifer Lopez filmography article also shows information about directors, budgets and box office grosses. The style in said filmography has been catching on to several others, as well.  — Statυs (talk, contribs
  ) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Her filmography is way too long and should get forked, only her most notable and important work should be listed in her main article. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Underground Comedy was renamed InAPPropriate Comedy and is being released in March 22 and nothing is mentioned in her Bio, it's just listed in her filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.100.12 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• No The problem is "too much fan mag detail" in the BLP - we do not need a paragraph on every day spent in jail <g> or countless quotes effusing over this or that. If we actually removed a lot of the trivial and overweighted "stuff", the BLP would be way shorter. Nor do I suggest her "complete filmography" is important - we can do what most articles do - list her important work and give linke to where folks can find out every minute detail. Collect (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The article and the filmography both need to be cut down. The page has too much information that looks like it is directed towards gossip columnist readers. I notice a lot of excess details and the picture of Marilyn Monroe really helps illustrate how much unnecessary content is in there. For filmography, I agree that her most important pieces of work are the only ones that need to be highlighted. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I was called here from

) 03:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I was wondering if this picture which is more current of Ms. Lohan could be her profile pic.

• Actress Lindsay Lohan arrives at the 'Scary Movie 5' Los Angeles premiere at ArcLight Cinemas Cinerama Dome on April 11, 2013 in Hollywood, California.
  Actress Lindsay Lohan arrives at the 'Scary Movie 5' Los Angeles premiere at ArcLight Cinemas Cinerama Dome on April 11, 2013 in Hollywood, California.

Popofculture (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This isn't Facebook. We don't have "profile pics". We use images that the author has given permission to use. That isn't one.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think being charged with criminal offences is relevant enough to be included in a person's biography. The sourcing should be better than it was, but I don't see how it could be considered too trivial to include. Mnbvcxz09876 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(see also my reply above re: legal issues in general) It's not that they're simply too trivial. It's exactly because criminal charges are a serious matter that we need to be cautious about how they're included in a BLP (biography of a living person.) The charges might be dropped and have no lasting impact whatsoever, legally or on her career. And we don't include things, in particular potentially damaging things, in a BLP because something might come of them in the future. Relevant policies:

WP:CRYSTAL Siawase (talk

) 03:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Criminal charges are very often included on Wikipedia biographies without waiting for the case to come to court. I don't see a reason to not mention it in Lohan's case. Is there a specific policy regarding whether or not arrests/charges should be included on a bio? Disputes regading this have been raised on several other articles, yet I don't see a ruling on this. We should be consistent. 94.197.101.187 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The charges were dropped so I removed the arrest from the article. [12] Siawase (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I still have issues with this article, especially when it is now a Good Article.

• 2008–09: television appearances and fashion section: Her opinions about Obama and Palin... why are they necessary and encyclopedic? Now that Barack Obama has four more years (or until impeachment on Obama comes along), and that Sarah Palin (or Pain) is neither a Governor nor Vice President, should removal of her opinions not affect the article?
• Sourcing: there are too many citations for each of similar infos. I have trouble removing them accurately because I cannot tell which is or is not reliable.

I have two issues brought up already, but there may be more. --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I eliminated too many sources and hopefully kept reliable sources. But there may be more... --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you are unsure what you are doing, I restored the references. There are

WP:NPOV

. When adding prose/sources I've taken care to use a variety of highly reliable sources, to get a multitude of points of view.

Also, I'm pretty sure I mentioned this last time around, but if you really want to clean up the referencing, go through the Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair articles and replace the news cites with references to those, but you have to be very careful that every detail remains cited (or remove details that aren't in those sources.) Siawase (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As for her political views, Wikipedia generally includes publicly held political views in BLPs, and the media coverage of Lohan's politics carry enough

WP:WEIGHT to be included here, however, the level of detail might have been a bit excessive, so I trimmed it back a bit, see diff. (Also, since you again brought up the number of references in conjunction with this article being a Good Article, the number of references is not part of the Good article criteria.) Siawase (talk

) 08:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

True it's not part of Good Article criteria. Nevertheless, the article should be promoted as Featured again. That's why I brought up issues. By the way, your reverts prompt me to figure that I don't know how to remove irrelevant details. Well, I'll leave the edits to you then. --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not part of the Featured article criteria either. Siawase (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You removed the information about her badly-executed philantrophy. Since I don't want to revert, I feel that I must discuss first. I thought political views is worse than making philantrophy that leads to debt issues. Must I ask why? --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"her badly-executed philantrophy" and "making philantrophy that leads to debt issues" are not things that the prose or the sources even say. She did fundraising for the Red Cross. She sued a company. The two events are completely unrelated. I don't know where you even got "debt issues" from? Siawase (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Another issue is the 2006–07: independent movies and career interruptions section. While reading, I notice that there could be minor misleadings. Asthma and tobacco smoking may be connected, but I don't see why they must be in the same sentence, unless to mislead readers about Lohan's asthma and smoking. Also, some subordinate (dependent) sentences should be independent sentences, and some independent sentences should be subordinate sentences. (For example, "early January 2007, production on the film I Know Who Killed Me was put on hold when Lohan underwent appendix surgery." Why film first and surgery last?) As you said, too many citations are used to balance the weight. However, if you want to eliminate less reliable sources, then try rephrasing sentences just to comply with more reliable sources, as you did recently. Fair enough? --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That several sources are used to balance weight does not mean that less reliable sources are included deliberately. Even highly reliable sources can have different points of view, include different facets of a story etc.

Asthma and tobacco smoking are mentioned in the same sentence because the highly reliable source used (Harper's Bazaar) mentioned them in conjunction with each other. I'm not sure how that can be misleading? That brief sentence even goes out of its way to mention that she has suffered from asthma since she was two years old (using another highly reliable source, Vanity Fair) so it even makes it clear that the smoking did not cause the asthma.

"Why film first and surgery last?" It could be reworded as "In early January 2007 Lohan underwent appendix surgery and production on the film I Know Who Killed Me was put on hold." with little change in the literal meaning. But the salient point is that the film was put on hold, so that is mentioned first, and then the surgery after as the cause of it. Siawase (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Still, smoking could worsen her asthma, right? --George Ho (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Saying that amounts to

WP:BLP subject. Which is why the article doesn't say that. The article is summarizing what reliable sources say, no more, no less. Siawase (talk

) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I found out that she has a brother, Michael Jr. Why is it omitted in this article yet mentioned in Michael Lohan? --George Ho (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

He is mentioned in this article in the early life section. Siawase (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize that I let my personal feelings for this subject interfere my issues with article quality. The more crimes she makes, the longer the article will be. Also, I couldn't understand why she has to rebel and live in vanity, especially by skipping filming days that affected film projects. Also, people feel that whatever she says and other say about her should be included. Nevertheless, the media is a circus to me, and I don't know why media treat her as an "important" figure. Whenever I read this article, I wonder how long the article will be and how long the media will keep an eye on her. And how many more commentators will cover her? I think I'm through bringing up article issues this year. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Was thinking of that too, article can't be very long even if needed. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So, disregarding the fact the later sections of her life are confusing, jumbled, and look horrible, it should be noted she's been the voice over for the Tosh.0 intro warning since January 2011. Also, I'd recommend splitting sections for her career and personal life. This is one of only a few articles where I've seen all this info compiled together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.10.85 (talk)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add guest appearance on Chelsea Lately on August 6th to filmography. Musicadder (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Another request: Lohan only guest hosted SNL 4 times; in the article she is listed as hosting 5 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.144.163 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You have become autoconfirmed since making the request. Please have a

I have slowly been trimming away at details to improve flow/readability, and hopefully improve

Since there have been no objections I went ahead and trimmed the legal issues in the rest of the article as per above. See diff: [13] Feedback is of course still welcome. Siawase (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have three, four, even five refs for every statement. It clutters up the page and makes it hard to read. A single ref to a reliable source is usually all that's needed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is some previous discussion about the number of references in the archive: [14][15] Siawase (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The "2010–11: Machete and legal issues" section has too many references. I checked the references and found most reliable. I'm aware that removing some is too risky. At least effort is needed to make the article near FA-quality without affecting the GA-status. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion about this: [16][17] Siawase (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Filmography: 2014: "Inconceivable"

Walker, Andrew. "Lindsay Lohan at Sundance to Announce New Movie." CBS. N.p., 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2014. 64.252.194.146 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Done -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The quick comment space was not really sufficient for the explanation of the change, so I am writing a bit here. While the press report citing Logan attending AA meetings is a legit cite, it is not really necessary to note that she "attended AA meetings." Alcoholics Anonymous itself (as an organization) asks that its members remain anonymous at the level of press, radio, and films. While that policy does not mention TV or the internet, it predates the invention of both, and anonymity at the level of the internet can be safely presumed. While Wikipedia and it's contributors are not responsible for maintaining this policy, it costs nothing to go along with it, and is courteous to avoid anonymity breaks where possible. (The reasoning behind this appears to be a desire that no one become "the public face of AA," and then lead to damage to the AA program's reputation due to a well-publicized flameout by a 'known' member. Since it is always up to the individual to work and develop their own way of following the program, any individual failure is not the fault of AA per se, but simply the nature of the problem of alcoholism. AA decided early on to try to avoid this trap, as it would lead to the program being less helpful, and opted to follow a policy of anonymity.)

Put more personally, as I am a member myself, if I flame out, it was a lack in my own working of the program, and should not reflect on AA itself. AA has had remarkable successes, and anything that might be a threat to possible future success should be avoided, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrRob (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

UCLA doctors diagnosed Lindsay with a personality disorder in 2010. [Two links removed.]

50.74.152.2 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Supposed private medical information, cited to an anonymous TMZ source? (Note that the Foxnews URL is just a republishing of TMZ, not independent reporting.) This is what

WP:REDFLAG were made for. (In other words, including this in the article would be against Wikipedia policy.) Siawase (talk

) 12:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, including the information on this talk beyond what is necessary to discussion the question may be a violation of

WP:BLP, so I removed the links. -Sigeng (talk

) 09:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014

This edit request to Lindsay Lohan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

While in negotiations for her role in Speed The Plow, Lohan quietly signed on to play the role of Feathers in the upcoming horror film Six Gun Dead, directed by Darwin Brooks<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3200518/?mode=desktop&ref_=m_ft_dsk>. JackGuthrie15 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't cite to IMDb. Perhaps you have a more reliable source?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Lindsay Lohan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You forgot to mention an entire role in the movie My Scene Goes to Hollywood. She had a speaking role and was one of the major characters.

Roxablah (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Already done Already mentioned: "She also voiced herself in the animated direct-to-DVD film My Scene Goes Hollywood, based on the series of dolls." Sam Sailor ^Sing 05:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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 [18] 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: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: [19] [20] Siawase (talk

) 17:20, 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: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[21][22] 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[23] 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)

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

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:NPOV issues, see previous discussions here [24] and here [25]. The show didn't actually open on the 24th, critics just reviewed a preview, not something they usually do, see: [26][27] 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

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

If you read the previous discussions I linked above, [28][29] you can see that long standing

¶ 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)