Talk:Ashley Greene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

deletion of "In kiss me kill me"[edit]

The youtube video of this song has been destroyed thanks to this. I had to delete it. ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.212.3 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is no reason to delete information. Andrea (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Its sparking vandalism on other parts of the internet. Don't be selfish.

Again, your personal opinion on the effects of this article are no reason to delete information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we don't censor or remove facts because someone doesn't like them being there. Andrea (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that I don't like it, its just that I can cite people saying that they are spamming other sites based on this information. Whether this information is true or not, it would be a disservice to youtube for this information to remain present.

"Disservice to youtube" is also unjust reason to remove information from Wikipedia. Maybe you should read this, which explains that content is not to be taken out because someone finds it objectionable. I'm sorry that you don't like the information being there, but it should stay. Please stop removing it. Andrea (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm really glad that you spent an hour or two reading wikipedia's rules, but even that says that Wikipedia does not contain clear vandalism, and I can safely assume it also includes information than encourages vandalism on other websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.212.3 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion: While Wikipedia is not censored, which means we don't remove information because someone finds it objectionable, we also have a biography of living persons policy which requires that information on living people is attributable to a reliable source. As there is no source listed for the information in question, it may be removed until a source can be found. —BradV 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree– thanks for your help. I'll find a proper source. Andrea (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not saying that I disagree with it, I'm saying that Wikipedia is providing a diservice to the Internet (in this case, Youtube) by allowing this information to be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.212.3 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

This actress has a personal website with photos which can all be used, rather than the generic. I'd upload but (obviously) can't. So, for anyone who can, here's a useable image (http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo111/Ashleydenee/Website%20Images/AshleyGreene.jpg). Ashleydenee (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image has not been released under a free license. Therefore, it can not be used. This individual is still alive, and per Foundation dictum, only free licensed images are permitted for depicting living people. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protected for 24 hrs - edit warring, possible BLP violation on nude photos info[edit]

I have full protected the article for 24 hrs due to edit warring and reinsertion of the potentially BLP violating nude photos information.

If consensus here on the article talk page and on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ashley Greene thread is that it's ok to add it then any administrator can undo the full protect at any time, but I do not recommend doing so without a consensus forming. `Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that due to the substantial effects which such photo releases can have I do feel they are pertinent to celebrity related entries. I'd also like to point out that my re-edit of the information back into the article was fully tasteful, while previous edits (performed by 76.182.220.212) made blatant implications as to Ashley Greene's intentions and were obviously trolling the page. I don't feel there is so much an 'edit war' going on as there is a desire to keep the information on the page in a tasteful fashion rather than making jabs at Greene's personal attitude as 76.182.220.212 was doing.

-69.71.229.32 —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You guys don't feel as though citing the number of leaked photos precisely would be helpful?[edit]

I've tried twice to specify that it was only 1 nude and 1 topless photo that leaked. I feel as though saying "nude photos" leaked gives the impression that it was like Paris Hilton with 500 photos floating around the web. It seems less of an issue if it is only 1 photo, in my opinion, I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. I feel this is one instance where being specific would be appropriate. Especially since the frontal nude one doesn't even have her face in frame. Dee1980dee (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, including the number would make things clearer, but we need a source for that. The references currently provided do not state how many pictures were leaked. What you personally saw is insufficient as a source (especially since I, personally, saw 3 leaked photos). Find an article that says how many pictures there were, and we can add it. Andrea (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, that makes sense. You're right by the way, 3 PHOTOS were leaked, but the article references "nude photos". I guess it is a matter of semantics. To be accurate 1 photo is what I would call "risque", she is topless but covering her breasts with her hands and no nudity is shown, one is a full topless shot, and the other is an odd photo that shows her breasts and completely shaven pubic area, but her face is not in frame. If I was going to be "encyclopedia accurate", I would only refer to the latter as a "nude photo". That may be too picky for wikipedia though. In the mean time I will see if I can find a reputable source on the photos, and if I find it I will post it here in talk first. Dee1980dee (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference seems to have been taken down. It's agreed that there are indeed 3 nude photos that have been leaked of her, so why has any mention of this magically disappeared? I can link to a website with them if need be. 24.18.109.9 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ". --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the nude pictures aren't referenced. She is a woman of legal age with nude pictures floating around for her own good.

We all know these stars get these pictures and videos out there to get buzz going about them. It's not being a 'tabloid' when you reference things people have done to get attention in the media.

Wikipedia has/had no problem defending it's child pornography standing for how many years so I don't see what this problem is.Woods01 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so what's her name, get decided[edit]

so now we have two versions of her name. Greene and Greene-Pattinson. Which one is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muse[edit]

it should be mentioned that twilight made Muse famous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.156.255 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off, that is unrelated to Ashley Greene's article. And second, it is not true. Andrea (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

appearances in music videos[edit]

Year Title Artist Notes
2005 "Dangerous and Moving" t.A.T.u
2010 "Kiss Me Kill Me" Mest

i have moved this here because it was entered without sources and without verification should not stay in the article in case its false. if it can be proved, then it can be added back in. --Stripy Socks (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Stupid[edit]

Why does it say Summer's Blood was "Originally titled Summer's Blood". That's simply retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.33.129 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the movie is actually "Summer's Moon". Why they are using the word blood I don't know.Whit77 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to change "Blood" to "Moon"? I see the movie is supposed to be on TV in a few hours, listed as "Summer's Moon." I'll wait and maybe see, then act boldly.GcT (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016[edit]

In the Filmography section, change GBGB to CBGB. See movie Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CBGBtheMovie Mathfair (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashley Greene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022[edit]

ADD Section for Entrepreneur: Ashley Greene is the Co-Founder of "Fridgits" along with husband Paul Khoury, sister-in-law Sarah Khoury, and close family friend, Sophia Silva.

Citations: https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/fridgits-ashley-greene-food-nft-female-entrepreneurs/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/ashley-greene-launches-first-nft-food-game-with-team-of-female-entrepreneurs/ar-AAUgjWf https://www.Fridgits.com Fridgits (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Only one of those (the MSN one) is a credible secondary source – the first is a gossip rag, and the last is a primary source which does not contribute to notability. I would say one credible secondary source is not enough to merit inclusion as per WP:UNDUE. And even if multiple quality secondary sources can be found for this, it certainly wouldn't merit a separate section – just a sentence under either 'Career' or 'Personal life'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022[edit]

On March 25, 2022, Greene and her husband announced they were expecting their first child together. 2600:387:C:7114:0:0:0:8 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was  Done, by another editor in this edit. Editors should always check the revision history before responding. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashley_Greene&oldid=1207432514"