Talk:Lee Aaron

Bio details

Someone that is "moderating" this wiki article seems to be prohibiting any unflattering information about Lee Aaron to be displayed. Where is the information about her first husband for example? Lee says that she was pressured by her manager to pose for oui - I was her manager and that statement is untrue— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Conneley,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia entries are not moderated per se, literally anyone can edit, re-edit, re-re-edit, etc. in most cases. If you feel that a statement regarding you is inaccurate, you are perfectly free to remove it, or to request someone provide a source for the statement by using the ({ { cn } } without the spaces) tag. If you feel that information is missing, for example a first marriage, you are free to provide references that document it and someone will update the article to reflect that. (As someone who has had business dealings with her, you probably should avoid editing the article directly because of the potential for conflict of interest. If you wish to support claims you make by referencing documents in your possession, it would be helpful if you could publish those documents so that they may be referenced as reliable sources. (Wikipedia is a tertiary source.)Holzman-Tweed (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I must note that the fact is that Ms. Aaron says you pressured her regarding the OUI photos, and the article cites a source for that statement from her. If you can provide a reference I can cite that you dispute her statement (for example, if you've discussed this in an interview), I can update the article to reflect that disagreement about events. I can't update the article based on your direct statement to me, however, as that would constitute original research. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr Holzman - thank you for clarification as to how wiki works. At this point - I don't intend to participate in online "negative publicity" to try to right the statements Greening has made in the past. I would like to assume that she now regrets doing that interview. It's up to her to right the wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Drastic Changes

Why has Lee's birth name and birthdate info been removed from this article? Is it not "the Truth"? BrianFG (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why has this article been changed so drastically? Since when do we replace sourced material with unsourced material? That's not how we do things here.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that was me. Terrible newbie mistake, I apologize. Everything I wrote was true, while a lot of the stuff currently here is inaccurate. But I am unclear on how I am supposed to prove it is true. All of my information comes from Lee Aaron herself, corroborated by my knowledge of her history. I don't know how to cite that! I would appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks! SaladGoat (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Information provided by the subject of a scholarly article or their handlers presents a natural conflict of interest, and in any serious body of work would be excluded without independent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.41.29 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize you may be asking How did I get this info from Lee Aaron? I run her website, LeeAaron.com, so we are in constant contact. She was concerned by the mistakes in her biography and wanted to correct them, while at the same time fleshing out the story a little more. For a bio written by the person, you have to admit it was fairly neutral. I think it followed all the guidelines except one. The only thing it lacked was references. Apparently that is more important than I first suspected. OK, I stand corrected and humbly ask for help.... SaladGoat (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} (See above. Thanks.) SaladGoat (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SaladGoat and thank you for your contributions, which are by no means bad. The helpme template isn't really supposed to be used to request general help with an article, but I can offer some advice as to whom you should ask, and on other matters. On the references front, reliable sourcing is important. Go grab (an) independent biography/ies and see what you can reference from that/those. If you're still stuck about how best to improve the article, try WikiProject Music, as they'll have written many a similar article. If you have more specific concerns about how to do things, feel free to use the helpme template (or ask me). Oh, and for god's sake: keep editing! Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and [if] you want to use a new image of her, the current one is about to be nominated for deletion as a possible copyright violation., Donating copyrighted materials should help you through the process. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In its current state, this article says: This is completely untrue. Although the magazine printed a retraction in the next issue, this "false fact" seems to haunt her... accompanied by a reference which does not specifically say anything about a retraction, a haunting, or untrue and false facts as such, which can easily be construed as misleading. Though I am challenging the way this material has been presented, I'm hoping the author can find good grammatical compromise through rewording, rather than revert.

However, whether the facial reconstruction surgery information is correct or not, my interpretation of WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability suggests that the "Canoe JAM" reference (a reliable third-party source) carries much more weight than a reference to an "official bio", which in most cases, carries absolutely no weight on Wikipedia at all. To ensure this newly introduced information stands the test of time (and avoids possible conflicts with WP:No original research), I strongly suggest that additional third-party sources be present to back up the claims and reliability of your chosen reference material. - WikHead (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

SaladGoat: Your edits have now left the neutrality of this article strongly in doubt. It is approaching the level of "autobiography", something Wikipedia strongly discourages. It should also be pointed out that Wikipedia bios are not necessarily intended to be "officially sanctioned" by the subject of the bio. --Freshfighter9 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikHead: I believe I have addressed your concerns with my recent edit.

Freshfighter9: I tried to stay neutral in the telling. My goal is not necessarily to have the information "officially sanctioned" but simply to be truthful and give the information that people would want to know. Can you please tell me which parts sound non-neutral or "autobiographical"? Or, if the entire article sounds "autobiographical" to you, can you please give me some glaring examples? I'd like to take the opportunity to neutralize it, rather than have it revert back to the previous text, and I honestly can't pick out what is clearly standing out for you. Thanks for all your input and help. -SaladGoat (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is beginning to seem that you somehow believe that the writing of this particular Wikipedia article is your sole responsibility. It is not. Lee Aaron may not approve of the article, but so be it.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

She asked me to make changes to the existing article, to eliminate erroneous statements. I have no delusions that I am the only one who can or will edit this article. I simply want to ensure that the edits I have made will not be deleted because of something I have done wrong. If it is written in a way that is not acceptable to the Wikipedia rules, then I want a chance to change it instead of it being reverted. If there is no danger of it being reverted to the previous text, then I have no interest in changing anything further. These are the reasons I am asking questions and trying to learn the ins and outs of this community. - SaladGoat (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming (in good faith) that the magazine source-material is indeed accurate and true to form, leaves me somewhat in doubt whether the entire second paragraph of the background section is even necessary. A broken nose and bruised face is really not that uncommon, nor does this information add much more than random trivia to an article about a musician. Because Wikipedia focuses on hard pertinent facts rather than rumours, bloopers, and miscellaneous media cruft that has not notably impacted the lives and careers of the subject, we must ask ourselves if it's really worth mentioning at all. Assuming that we have confirmed the surgery information is indeed false, I believe the entire article would be a much smoother and much more encyclopedic read with a COMPLETE omission. - WikHead (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The only reason that is there at all is because it was referenced in the "original" Wikipedia article. I assumed that if I deleted the incident entirely, it would simply be restored, because I had not refuted it. If it's all the same to everyone else, I would love to see that entire paragraph tossed to the wind. I'll leave that in the hands of others who can properly make the decision. Thanks! - SaladGoat (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I believe there are many issues with this article as it currently exists. It has been almost completely rewritten by an editor who admittedly works for Lee Aaron's official website, with the goal being to have it approved by Aaron herself. There certainly appears to be a major conflict of interest happening here. --Freshfighter9 (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The goal wasn't to have it approved by Lee Aaron but to have the actual facts. I tried to be neutral and I provided citations where possible. While it may seem like a conflict of interest, you can see that I have made no edits to this for over a year, while others have been merrily editing away. Why? There's nothing wrong with what has been added - or subtracted. I'm not trying to make this page into hype, I'm only concerned with the facts :)

You may notice I made one tiny edit tonight. Barely worth mentioning, except it was you who made the change in the first place, so I thought I would explain. Nude means wearing no clothes. Since Lee is wearing panties in every photo, I contend she posed topless. I suppose I could cite Oui magazine, but that seems like overkill. I don't think it's sugar-coated if it's true. --SaladGoat (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir, she is NUDE as in full frontal in some of those photos. Do a Google image search (i don't want to put a link here in case it is against wiki policy). The photos were reprinted in Celebrity Sleuth magazine and are on many celeb nude websites. No panties in some photos. Rich 50.47.233.203 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have a copy of the magazine in my possession, I do not need to Google it. And since I can see that she is wearing panties in every photo, I believe it is you who needs to double-check the photos you found. If they feature full-frontal nudity, they are most likely mislabelled and are not Lee Aaron. SaladGoat (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Aaron never posed nude for OUI as I was at the photo session. Topless only. That was the agreement. Someone must have photo-shopped the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)