Talk:Striptease
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Striptease article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Photoshoots
Should photoshoots by/for magazines where clothing is gradually removed through the course of the shoot count as stripteases, and so be mentioned in the article? TheDeadlyShoe 08:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
more pics
This article needs more pictures of fully nude strippers. Its just missing some. Any one have any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.101.65 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Dita Von Teese
Is there any particular reason Dita Von Teese isn't mentioned in the modern burlesque section, along with the Pussycat Dolls? If there is no objection I might insert a small mention as she has certainly been more significant than most in bringing the striptease into the public eye as a mainstream artform... Omgplz (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Striptease vs. stripping
Shouldn't striptease be a subset of an article on stripping, rather than having references to stripping redirect to striptease? Striptease is a particular approach to removing clothes for entertainment, emphasizing (as the name suggests), the tease. Modern strippers at many clubs are stripping, but they're not performing striptease. I'd also think things like lap dances and strip clubs would be worthy of their own articles.
For that matter, how distinct is striptease from burlesque? There's a lot of overlap, even if they're not the same thing.
- Striptease (in go-go) is performed in two song sets, where a performer dancers in costume for the first song, and topless (or nude) for the second song. In burlesque, the performance is more choreographed and nudity is rarely the focus. It's more of a 'tease'. Max Spades 05:39, 28 August 2005
Anyone have any recommendations? -- Scarequotes 06:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I have been unhappy with this article for a long time, but haven't had the time to fix it. I agree that what is currently done in most clubs is stripping or simply erotic nude dance. I would suggest just adding more material to this article, rather than creating a new article, because the dividing line is rather vague. The article can always be split up if it gets too long. ManoaChild 07:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
It's my opinion that what's characterized here as nothing more than 'stripping' and 'erotic nude dance' is the natural evolution of the art - and it's arguable that the level of 'tease' varies from performer to performer. This seems like nothing more, really, than a refusal to legitimize modern striptease. -63.3.8.1 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)No Username, just Feminist Stripper
"Auditions" section
This looks unencyclopedic, as it is written in a "how to" style, rather than in Wikipedia NPOV style. -- The Anome 23:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. ManoaChild 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Me too. The employment advice seems out of place. Or there ought to be advice for the visitor too: How much to tip. Ensure one knows how much the champagne will cost. Where to keep one's hands. Etc. (I own up only to anecdotal understanding of all this, of course.) Paul Beardsell 12:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I appologize. In the light of day, it does seem incorrectly formatted. I moved it into the Gentleman's club (adult entertainment) section and rewrote it. Max Spades5:35, 28 August 2005 (EST)
"Overview" section
Why was the overview section removed? ManoaChild 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the section remains, however, the opening line about "A strip club is..." was moved to the page on strip clubs. Max Spades05:44, 28 August 2005
Odd sentence
"Conversely, gay male strip clubs comparatively rarely feature male performers."
...What?
Is this sentence left over from something since removed?
Morypcaina 03:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Racist
"[a higher level of sexuality]...can be attributed to the noted natural "sexuality" or rather sensuality in the black female...."
Is this for real? What planet am I on? -Critic9328 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
you could reverse it so it says "Due to the legendary frigidity of White females..."
Why Women become strippers
"Why Women Become Strippers
Women become strippers for the money. Many were once waitresses in these clubs who thought they would never become strippers themselves, but gave into the temptation. Advertisements often tell women about how much they can make working as strippers."
I've got to say, I really, really wasn't expecting a stubby, extremely POV stub-thing consisting of three sentences of one of the most controversial aspects of this topic in this section. Either remove it outright or rewrite it... outright.
Not to say that this is the only section that needs work. -T. S. Rice 03:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Image
Any pictures of male strippers?? You know its good to balance the article out.
Feel free to take one yourself and upload it under GDFL. That's what I did. I'm not gay, so I'm not inclined to go take a pic of a male stripper. Sorry. Billy Blythe 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Links
I think that last link should be removed. Wikipedia isn't cencored, but it still shouldn't be a portal for porno.--KojiDude 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and removed all the seemingly promotional links; I can't see how they fit per External links policy. --TeaDrinker 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)]
Darn. I guess I won't be adding See genuine strippers perform to the main page then, for instance. It is an awfully enticing piece of virtual real estate, that page.
there's a pic [[1]]203.187.211.204 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
External Links
Why is it that hunkystrippers.com was removed from the external links on this page.
1) It is a non profit, non commercial site, run by volenteers. 2) It is not pornogrpahy and is 100% on topic for this page. 3) It contains a free comprehensive list or Directory of UK male strippers (not an agency) contact details are direct. 4) You have links for female strippers so why is a true male stripper resource removed?
Can someone please tell me exactly why this was edited out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksp (talk • contribs)
- Whilst the website owners may not be making a profit, it's nonetheless advertising commercially (i.e., the strippers themselves, who are presumably looking to be paid). It also probably doesn't help that every page has a link to a commercial pay-for-access porn site. Wikipedia isn't a web directory - there doesn't appear to be any information about strippers, rather it's advertising strippers. Mdwh 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with Mdwh on this one. --TeaDrinker 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
External links on such a subject are going to be spammy and akin to pornography. So perhaps not worth including.
That pic with the tramp stamp
i put it back in. any questions just let me know ok. MinervaSimpson 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality and OR Tags
Does anybody object if I remove these? If so maybe they could point out what this dispute is all about cos I'm not clear about it...Colin4C 08:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
New Burlesque
I don't think this should be in the article but rather somewhere else. It may be provocative dancing but it's no more stripping than Riverdance. -196.207.32.38 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
'Lucky St James'
On the latest edit war: I don't see any major objection to citing the burlesque dancer's (stage) name. This is only doing the girl a courtesy for allowing us the rights to look at her picture in the first place. Also, just labelling a picture of a person as a 'dancer' or 'stripper' and not giving their name, is, I feel, a bit objectifying, as though the girl's identity is not important as long as we can gawp at her. Colin4C 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- We can remove the photograph. Notability is the guideline for including names of people. This is not guideline, this is policy. We aren't here advertising Lucky St. James and her show. There's nothing notable about her, and with two other (unnamed) strippers on the page, we could even do without Lucky St. James, whose photo is also on three other pages. It has nothing to do with objectification. It's notability. And she isn't a notable stripper. If it was David Shankbone 19:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]
- I raised this issue on the admin noticeboard. Hey, if I'm wrong, okay - it'll set a precedent I should know about as a frequent photographic contributor. --David Shankbone 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]
- Raise it with them if you must. The way I see it the admins already have enough on their plates without getting involved in content squabbles. The name has been on here since October 2006 and you're the first one to object to it using incorrect facts no less. If you even read the suggestions on the talk page you would have seen that I don't think the Burlesque should be in the article as it isn't stripping and should be moved to another article. But as long as it is here it should be treated with the professional courtesy it deserves just like you claim attribution on your pictures. I don't care if you haven't heard of the dancer before and think she isn't notable, there are people who would say the same about Oprah. -196.207.32.38 22:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is a Wikipedia criteria, not a subjective rationale. The fact is if you say "Oprah" to a person, they know who it is; can Lucky St. James say the same? --David Shankbone 01:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]
- The whole issue of notability IS subjective. Like I said if you say Oprah to someone they might say HUH. Just because you don't think something is notable or relevant does not mean everyone else doesn't either and what you consider notable others might not. Allow this to be discussed rather that removing anything or alternatively add your support for moving the content. Thank you. -196.207.32.38 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you explain how Lucky St. James fits in with these guidelines for David Shankbone 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]
- Well, why don't you explain how Lucky St. James fits in with these guidelines for
- The whole issue of notability IS subjective. Like I said if you say Oprah to someone they might say HUH. Just because you don't think something is notable or relevant does not mean everyone else doesn't either and what you consider notable others might not. Allow this to be discussed rather that removing anything or alternatively add your support for moving the content. Thank you. -196.207.32.38 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is a Wikipedia criteria, not a subjective rationale. The fact is if you say "Oprah" to a person, they know who it is; can Lucky St. James say the same? --
- Raise it with them if you must. The way I see it the admins already have enough on their plates without getting involved in content squabbles. The name has been on here since October 2006 and you're the first one to object to it using incorrect facts no less. If you even read the suggestions on the talk page you would have seen that I don't think the Burlesque should be in the article as it isn't stripping and should be moved to another article. But as long as it is here it should be treated with the professional courtesy it deserves just like you claim attribution on your pictures. I don't care if you haven't heard of the dancer before and think she isn't notable, there are people who would say the same about Oprah. -196.207.32.38 22:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I raised this issue on the admin noticeboard. Hey, if I'm wrong, okay - it'll set a precedent I should know about as a frequent photographic contributor. --
<unindent> Based on a google hit-count, she does not seem to be notable (only a couple of hits from non-Wikipedia mirrors). As for attribution, it's already in the image credit. I don't see any reason it needs to be in the article too. Silly rabbit 03:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but what about 'courtesy'? Is that too old fashioned a concept for the wikipedia? Also the somewhat picturesque stage names of strippers/burlesque stars do tell us something valuable about the nature of the art IMHO. The names are not random from the phone book but often evocative of the art of striptease Colin4C 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the troupe name fits in rather well with the picture as well. Courtesy is very important. -196.207.32.38 11:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Courtesy refers to interaction with other editors, not whether irrelevant information about an image should be displayed. The image is already credited on commons. That should be enough. We don't need to include this information here. If you have a problem with that, then remove the image. Silly rabbit 11:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Courtesy refers to all situations. You have to be consistent in application. It is your opinion that the information is irrelevant. You can't jump from that to saying agree with me or remove the image. -196.207.32.38 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- As Shankbone says, notability is the threshold for inclusion. "Courtesy to the subject" is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline (for good reason). If you find the image inappropriate without the in-text attribution, then you should be proposing to remove the image if the attribution isn't there. This would be the only compromise which would be both courteous to the performer, and conform to official Wikipedia policies. Silly rabbit 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you have it backwards. If an image is inappropriate without attribution then the only option is inclusion of the attribution if it isn't legally or morally disputed. You are proposing removal when removal of content is the very issue disputed. Your suggestion is therefor not logically valid as a compromise and appears to be spite instead. The attribution was not considered inappropriate in the context by anyone until now. A compromise was reached and then rejected by DavidShankBone. I am willing to accept that compromise if the content remains on this page. -196.207.32.38 12:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]
- I'm afraid you have it backwards. If an image is inappropriate without attribution then the only option is inclusion of the attribution if it isn't legally or morally disputed. You are proposing removal when removal of content is the very issue disputed. Your suggestion is therefor not logically valid as a compromise and appears to be
- As Shankbone says, notability is the threshold for inclusion. "Courtesy to the subject" is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline (for good reason). If you find the image inappropriate without the in-text attribution, then you should be proposing to remove the image if the attribution isn't there. This would be the only compromise which would be both courteous to the performer, and conform to official Wikipedia policies. Silly rabbit 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Courtesy refers to all situations. You have to be consistent in application. It is your opinion that the information is irrelevant. You can't jump from that to saying agree with me or remove the image. -196.207.32.38 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Courtesy refers to interaction with other editors, not whether irrelevant information about an image should be displayed. The image is already credited on commons. That should be enough. We don't need to include this information here. If you have a problem with that, then remove the image. Silly rabbit 11:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the troupe name fits in rather well with the picture as well. Courtesy is very important. -196.207.32.38 11:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>I'm sorry if I am coming across as spiteful. I just happen to agree with ShankBone about this. Image removal is a common way of dealing with attribution issues. I must say that this is a rather unusual case since it deals with a perceived wish of the performer rather than a blatant copyright violation. So far Shankbone is the only one citing Wikipedia policy, and I think it's fairly clear cut. Shankbone also suggested replacing the image with a more notable one (Gypsy Rose Lee). We could go down that route too. Silly rabbit 13:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but ShankBone is yet to give a clear reason for why this should be seen as advertising and is simply unwilling to compromise, it's either his way or no way. Now how is replacing it with an image which is completely irrelevant to New Burlesque notsble at all? He is unwilling to discuss a compromise. -196.207.32.38 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've advocated taking this to the Village Pump over at the noticeboard. I think some outside editorial eyes might be helpful, and there could be some precedents to consider. Might I suggest cooling off for a bit? Things are getting dangerously heated around here over such a relatively minor issue. Cheers, Silly rabbit 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Rabbit, if you take this to the pump, I will not revert anymore. Thanks for being a mediative voice. I've also asked three respected admins, two of whom are admins at the Commons, to weigh in since this seems to failed David Shankbone 13:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]
- Rabbit, if you take this to the pump, I will not revert anymore. Thanks for being a mediative voice. I've also asked three respected admins, two of whom are admins at the Commons, to weigh in since this seems to failed
- I've advocated taking this to the Village Pump over at the noticeboard. I think some outside editorial eyes might be helpful, and there could be some precedents to consider. Might I suggest cooling off for a bit? Things are getting dangerously heated around here over such a relatively minor issue. Cheers, Silly rabbit 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any link to the Pump so far, so I'll just comment here. I'm quite unimpressed by 196.207.32.38's arguments for his/her repeated reverts. "Just because you don't think something is notable or relevant does not mean everyone else doesn't either and what you consider notable others might not" and "don't remove long-standing content" simply aren't arguments at all, they have nothing to do with the project's principles for retaining/removing text. Content being long-standing has no force in itself: if content is against policy, it doesn't matter if it's spent years in the same spot. It should still be removed. And notability requires objective evidence, per Wikipedia: Notability. Please look at that guideline, it deals very specifically with your "if you say Oprah to someone they might say HUH" type of argument. And incidentally, compromise doesn't have value in itself: we don't compromise between following policy and not following policy. 196.207.32.38, David Shankbone is citing wikipedia guidelines plus hardwired policy. Arguments like that have weight. (And for the record, I agree with him about WP:ADVERT and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). You'll have to find some policy-based arguments for what you want, too, because as of now, once you strip (sorry) off the irrelevant rhetoric, all you're saying is that you want it. That's not enough. Bishonen | talk 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC).
- Bishonen, ShankBone has failed to give good reasons why the content shouldn't be allowed. He started off with advertising which this is clearly not. When that didn't work he switched over to notability stating that it isn't necessary to mention a stripper's name and club when there is no stripper and club involved. When people explain to him that the content is relevant in the context and not advertising he doesn't seem to grasp that forcing me to use simple rhetoric to try and explain it. This seems like the part you picked up on which isn't the whole argument. ShankBone has for all intents and purposes failed to make his point and is currently involved in disputes over content and making continuous reverts in periods not nearing 24 hours to keep content he added while citing policy only when it suits him. Notability refers to articles and not to limit the content of articles which the only relevancy is verifiability. ShankBone has failed to give any 'notable' (excuse the pun) reason for removing the content other than he simply doesn't want it included and has failed to respond to my suggestions. -196.207.32.38 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any link to the Pump so far, so I'll just comment here. I'm quite unimpressed by 196.207.32.38's arguments for his/her repeated reverts. "Just because you don't think something is notable or relevant does not mean everyone else doesn't either and what you consider notable others might not" and "don't remove long-standing content" simply aren't arguments at all, they have nothing to do with the project's principles for retaining/removing text. Content being long-standing has no force in itself: if content is against policy, it doesn't matter if it's spent years in the same spot. It should still be removed. And notability requires objective evidence, per Wikipedia: Notability. Please look at that guideline, it deals very specifically with your "if you say Oprah to someone they might say HUH" type of argument. And incidentally, compromise doesn't have value in itself: we don't compromise between following policy and not following policy. 196.207.32.38, David Shankbone is citing wikipedia guidelines plus hardwired policy. Arguments like that have weight. (And for the record, I agree with him about WP:ADVERT and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). You'll have to find some policy-based arguments for what you want, too, because as of now, once you strip (sorry) off the irrelevant rhetoric, all you're saying is that you want it. That's not enough. Bishonen | talk 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC).
I agree with Lucky Rabbit that cooling off would be helpful. Also, I don't really see the merit of bringing this to administrator attention - it doesn't seem like a huge issue either way. There is one thing that I think would help the situation a lot: 196,207.32.38, would you mind telling us whether or not you have any connection to the burlesque venue in question? -Pete 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, unlike the allegation made on the admin page. You can check the ip, it is a Vodacom SA ip. And there is no specific venue rather a performer and the group she performs with which is relevant to the section. -196.207.32.38 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. To be honest I'm not interested in following this discussion to other pages, or checking IP addresses. I'll participate here as long as it seems productive, but I'm not going to read all the comments elsewhere.
- Ithink issues like this are best decided based on what is the best service to the reader. It's hard for me to see why a reader would need to know the name of the dancer and/or the troupe. -Pete 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
These are my arguments:
- The name of the dancer and the club she dances at are irrelevant to the Striptease article.
- Wikipedia:Notability applies to content as well as articles. With over 1,000 images on Wikipedia, I have seen it again and again that the subject of a photograph, unless notable, does not get their name mentioned. There are countless images of people on this website who are only on here because what they do or have in and of itself is what makes the image notable, but they themselves are not notable. Otherwise, this [2] would get his name mentioned on the Beard page. He is there as an example of a rabbi; ostensibly beyond that he is unnotable.
- WP:ADVERT is a principle to ensure that the encyclopedia is not used to advance the interests of private persons and corporations. Neither Lucky St. James nor Kitty Kitty Bang Bang are notable, and using their names on an article about striptease and "New Burlesque" serves no purpose relevant to an encyclopedia article about these subjects. It simply "gets their name out there." Whether that is intended or not is irrelevant.
- It would be poor precedent to allow unnotable clubs and people to have their names used in the articles, when the information is supplied in the description of the photograph. Why must there be a need to have these things mentioned when Notability is a central principle for articles, and the information is readily available in the image description?
This seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. Everything the IP 196 claims I am doing is what they themselves are doing (inability to compromise, constant reverts, etc.) This isn't a content dispute. This is a policy dispute, and the IP falls on the wrong side. They are unable to bring in other examples, guidelines or policies that support them. What is surprising is that this is still an issue. --
- Wikipedia:Notability: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines". Colin4C 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being a pest, but I'd really like to hear from 196 (and anyone else arguing for inclusion - ??) what the value of including the name of the dancer and her troupe is. I don't mind if you guys talk about all this policy mumbo jumbo, but that question is foremost in my mind. If there is a value, I want to hear what it is, because it's not apparent to me. -Pete 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO its not a big deal either way, but as I said before it is merely common courtesy if we use her image, to mention the girl's (stage) name, rather than objectifying her as 'the stripper' or 'the dancer'. And as I also said before the idiosyncratic stage names of strippers are evocative of the art of striptease, like the stage names of wrestlers are evocative of wrestling. Colin4C 17:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]
- IMHO its not a big deal either way, but as I said before it is merely common courtesy if we use her image, to mention the girl's (stage) name, rather than objectifying her as 'the stripper' or 'the dancer'. And as I also said before the idiosyncratic stage names of strippers are evocative of the art of striptease, like the stage names of
Colin, sorry I didn't reply to that earlier. I don't agree that "common courtesy" applies that way in an encyclopedia; the subject's photo is provided as a sample of the profession in question, and her individuality (while of course significant) is not germane to the article. I just checked the pages for
I did notice another thing, however: the captions frequently mention the subject's nationality, or the police force they work for. I think all the modern photos on this page are likely American, but it's not mentioned. Perhaps including "an American burlesque troupe" in the caption would be worthwhile (assuming that's accurate, or Canadian or French or whatever.)
Your point about the creativity of stage names is interesting, and possibly compelling. -Pete 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now I've started wondering what the other stripper's name is whose photo is on the page...But, yes, most probably American as you suggest. At least I've never seen her in a strip club here in England...Colin4C 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to deal with the facts first.
- It is the name of the dancer which is mentioned, there is no club involved.
- I have still to see a case made that notability applies to article content when the policy clearly states it does not, maybe it can be applied to the image page which is still subjective reasoning but again it would not apply to the content of the page or image. The example given seems somewhat weak to me, attribution can not only be given to the subject but may even be required under the license. Saying that an image should not be used because it requires attribution is a lame argument imho.
- I just fail to see how advertising relates to this. There is no page created specifically for it which seems to be the main concern. It certainly isn't advertising if most people have a hard time deciding that it is. If there is any relevancy please state it instead of referring to policies which may or may not have an obscure relevant section somewhere in them. As for spamming please refer to the section on canvassing or the article for it.
- Again notability is not the issue with article content.
For Pete and others who want to deal with the real issue we have now established that policy says nothing on this and that this is simply another content dispute which is why ShankBone's policy statements will not have the effect he desires. It is easy to see that DavidShankBone has made 7 reverts to erection in under 15.5 hours refusing to again reach a compromise in order to keep his content in a prominently displayed position (no pun intended). That IS disruptive behaviour.
Now to the issue at hand. Besides what Colin raised about courtesy I think if an example is given of a specific profession there is no reason not to mention the person the photo is of. It is easy to say that police officer, undertaker, butcher, teacher, and wrestler does not mention names. However people generally don't remember or even ask for the names of these. The exceptions may be teacher since we remember our teachers generally but we don't remember the name of every teacher we meet or wrestler but there is no photo identifying any specific wrestler. What I did notice is that barista does state the name of the competitor, James Hoffmann, in the World Barista Championships. This is not setting a precedent as David would suggest. In either case I don't see what the big deal is about identifying the dancer since it is not advertising as is claimed and the caption does fit in rather nicely with the image just looking at it. -196.207.32.38 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mr./Ms. Anonymous 196, just FYI, although you make some legitimate points, your attempts to discredit DSB do damage to your own credibility. I've known him for some time, I don't have to "assume" good faith in his case because I have the utmost confidence in his intentions. If you want to "deal with the real issue," practice what you preach. -Pete 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- FYI DSB as you call him has made unwarranted threats to me and others about getting people banned while not following the rules himself and has also made other allegation towards me. It is clear to me that he is simply a user who want to have his way. If he had gone down a different route and admitted to the truth that this is simply a content dispute and he simply doesn't think the content should be included I would not have treated the situation this way. Instead he has used threats and policies which do not apply. I see no reason why I should not bring that up if he want's to continue citing rules and policies as his reasons. -196.207.32.38 13:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, I am not the only editor who thinks that the notability and advertising policies and guidelines are an issue here. I used a vandal warning template on your Talk page (mine wasn't the first) after you continually re-inserted the unnotable stripper's name on the article. You have yet to address why the advertising and notability guidelines don't apply, even though three (me, Silly Rabbit and Bishonen), possibly four (PeteForsyth), editors think they are very pertinent to the issue at hand. It has already been explained to you that "courtesy" is neither a policy nor a guideline when it comes to content of the articles. You also have yet to explain why these things need to be in the article, when they are found in the image's description and details. Why is that not enough? It is for most other images. --David Shankbone 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)]
- The vandal warning is unwarranted and I am not interested in other warnings you think I might have. I am not the only one you threatened in a content dispute. You are STILL referring to strippers when no stripper is even mentioned. You have not yet cited where the advertising and notability "policies" prohibit this. In fact the notability guideline which is not even a policy says it does not apply to the content. It was made clear to you on the administrators board by most that this is simply a content dispute. You fail to show where your policy prohibits it as the wikipedia policy clearly does not. You may not understand why this hasn't been resolved yet, but as long as you resort to irrelevancies instead of the real fact that you simply don't like it being included it won't get resolved. -196.207.32.38 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- "You also have yet to explain why these things need to be in the article, when they are found in the image's description and details. Why is that not enough? It is for most other images. --David Shankbone14:25, 2 July 2007"
- "You also have yet to explain why these things need to be in the article, when they are found in the image's description and details. Why is that not enough? It is for most other images. --
- PS: Just saw the following link Wikipedia:Notability_(people) "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy; however, these criteria are considered a fair test of whether a historical or living person merits an article at Wikipedia." also Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.", bolding mine. This is simply a matter of people's personal preference. -196.207.32.38 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. I should perhaps speak up again, to point out that I'm as unimpressed as before. Policies and guidelines are not supposed to be cherry-picked for fragments you can use to further your own agenda while ignoring their spirit and intention and any part of any one of them that happens not to suit. We have a term for that kind of policy abuse: ]
- The vandal warning is unwarranted and I am not interested in other warnings you think I might have. I am not the only one you threatened in a content dispute. You are STILL referring to strippers when no stripper is even mentioned. You have not yet cited where the advertising and notability "policies" prohibit this. In fact the notability guideline which is not even a policy says it does not apply to the content. It was made clear to you on the administrators board by most that this is simply a content dispute. You fail to show where your policy prohibits it as the wikipedia policy clearly does not. You may not understand why this hasn't been resolved yet, but as long as you resort to irrelevancies instead of the real fact that you simply don't like it being included it won't get resolved. -196.207.32.38 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, I am not the only editor who thinks that the notability and advertising policies and guidelines are an issue here. I used a vandal warning template on your Talk page (mine wasn't the first) after you continually re-inserted the unnotable stripper's name on the article. You have yet to address why the advertising and notability guidelines don't apply, even though three (me, Silly Rabbit and Bishonen), possibly four (PeteForsyth), editors think they are very pertinent to the issue at hand. It has already been explained to you that "courtesy" is neither a policy nor a guideline when it comes to content of the articles. You also have yet to explain why these things need to be in the article, when they are found in the image's description and details. Why is that not enough? It is for most other images. --
- FYI DSB as you call him has made unwarranted threats to me and others about getting people banned while not following the rules himself and has also made other allegation towards me. It is clear to me that he is simply a user who want to have his way. If he had gone down a different route and admitted to the truth that this is simply a content dispute and he simply doesn't think the content should be included I would not have treated the situation this way. Instead he has used threats and policies which do not apply. I see no reason why I should not bring that up if he want's to continue citing rules and policies as his reasons. -196.207.32.38 13:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about just replacing the image with an image of a really notable stripper? The Gypsy Rose Lee page has just a portrait/screenshot, but if someone could provide a usable image of a famous stripper in performance, maybe that would settle this dispute? Dekkappai 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)