Talk:Striptease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dance (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality / Sex work  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sex work task force.
 
WikiProject Nudity (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Photoshoots...[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Spades 5:35, 28 August 2005 (EST)

"Overview" section[edit]

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 Spades 05:44, 28 August 2005

Odd sentence[edit]

"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[edit]

"[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...?[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

i put it back in. any questions just let me know ok. MinervaSimpson 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Neutrality and OR Tags[edit]

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[edit]

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'[edit]

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 Gypsy Rose Lee, okay. Ms. St. James? No. We can debate it here, but as someone who has supplied over 1000 (hard to get) images to Wikipedia, I've come across this situation and know well that this isn't allowed. --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 Wikipedia:Notability. Thanks. --David Shankbone 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<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)

<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 WP:ADVERT and Wikipedia:Notability (people). --David Shankbone 13:25, 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 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:

  1. The name of the dancer and the club she dances at are irrelevant to the Striptease article.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. --David Shankbone 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 police officer, undertaker, butcher, teacher, barista, and (at your suggestion) wrestler. None of the photos on those pages identify individuals by name, except in a couple cases where the subject is uncontroversially notable.

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 Shankbone 14:25, 2 July 2007"
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: Wikilawyering. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 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)
2006 winner, Julie Atlas Muz.

::Great idea. How about the winner of the burlesque pageant Miss Exotic World Pageant (right). This seems to satisfy notability, graphic representation, courtesy, etc. The photo is from the Commons. Is this a good compromise? I think it seems perfect. --David Shankbone 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Works fine for me, though I've entered pretty late into the conversation. Any one of dozens of notable strippers would do, but this one is fine. Dekkappai 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see what all the fuss is about. Is this the greatest storm in a teacup on the wikipedia so far? Colin4C 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Storm in a D-cup more like it... Dekkappai 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I dunno - St. James's look more like B's to me. --David Shankbone 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's inadmissable as either POV or OR, David. ;) Dekkappai 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's email Jimbo! Also, you clearly looked at her boobies - let's make sure you get added to a registry of boobie-lookers. (On a more serious note, the JPEG compression on the Lucky St. James photo is abysmal - either that, or she has a really weird skin condition. Replacing that photo seems like an excellent option to me.) -Pete 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
Well Colin, I guess what the fuss is about is that for some people it is a major issue for names to be mentioned (for some unknown reason) and for some of us it is not. -196.207.32.38 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a very interesting remark, made in <ahem> obvious good faith. A rough count of posts made in this thread indicates that it's a major issue principally for you (for, just as you say, some unknown reason), since you have taken the trouble to post in it 19 times, restating your position again and again with great emphasis and intensity. It's less of an issue for DavidShankbone (14 times) and Colin (10 times), and, I would say, a positively minor issue for Peteforsyth (7 times), Silly Rabbit (6 times), Bishonen (3 times) and Deckappai (3 times). See, it's not that the people who oppose you have a greater interest in the matter than you and Colin—the opposite is clearly true— it's that there are more of them. In fact, comfortably enough of them for what we call consensus. If you notice your opponents' input more than your own, it could also be because they have better arguments. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
You may think that it is not a major issue for David but just tell me since when do people take non issues to the administrators board, since when do people promptly undo something which is a non issue not even looking at what other changes may have been made. If I respond a lot it's because a lot of the comments and questions were directed at me as now. If you also take a closer look you will see that some of those were corrections made just after the initial post. What is an issue for me is that things which are supposedly non issues get taken to the administrators board and threats are made for supposedly breaking the rules by users whom themselves have disregard for the rules. -196.207.32.38 13:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved, so this will be my last post. I brought this up to the admin board because it was a policy/guideline issue regarding advertising, which is relatively serious. Your issue was that you wanted to see the stripper's name included. I think most people can see why I thought this was an important principle issue for the project; however, I don't think most people understood why it was so important for you. It was odd that you so vehemently defended a low-quality photograph of an unnotable burlesque performer in order to keep information on the main article that was found in the image's details (which you never explained why that was insufficient). You made repeated attempts to discredit me by dragging in unrelated issues, and the fact that nothing has been said to me via your attempts, and that you in the end were the only one who cared about Lucky St. James should be an indication that you were on the wrong side of the issue. But that seems lost on you. You made no effort to compromise, as Colin did, you simply wanted Lucky St. James mentioned on the article. That is the whole and sum of your argument. And it was an unimpressive one. For someone who was so disinterested, you made this quite personal. --David Shankbone 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well since it has been resolved and most have accepted the new image for various different reasons this will be my last post on the issue as well. You brought this up at the admin board because you thought it was a policy/guideline issue. I can understand your reasons for doing so under the mindset, which turned out to be debatable as well. I, and some others, however can not see the harm in mentioning a name with a picture and if that is going to be an issue for everyone in the future it will severely limit the information that wikipedia may carry, THAT is why it is such an issue. I accepted Silly rabbit's compromise, I do not need to remind anybody who did not. As for attempts to discredit it is also on record who made unfounded allegations on the admin page and who made threats about bans in content disputes to me and others. I'm just guessing here but think this may be a habit and when unwarranted threats and allegations are made the issue is usually already a personal one. Just something to keep in mind next time. -196.207.32.38 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, the 'policy' as David calls it clearly states that it is a guideline and that it does not limit article content. That is pretty clear cut and NOT cherry picking. If it is your personal opinion that you don't want the photo then that is fine by me but please don't use policy or guidelines as that does not apply. The only real policy which can apply to the content is verifiability. Dekkappai, we are NOT talking about a stripper, but the objection is simply that the name of the professional performer should not be metioned. Now I have just opened up a random encyclopedia article on opera and not only are performers mentioned but even the venues and producers in some cases. Information is the key and if information is available there is no reason not to include it. Doing so will put an artificial cap on the amount of information wikipedia may contain. If you want to keep the new image just resize it so it doesn't intrude on the rest of the article especially since it is vertical. -196.207.32.38 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • What is lost on you is that the opera people and venues mentioned are all notable, each meriting their own articles in their own right. Neither Lucky St. James nor Kitty Kitty Bang Bang are notable in the Burlesque/Striptease world. --David Shankbone 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can make that judgement without having even seen the article. -196.207.32.38 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You're assuming I didn't look at the Opera article. If it's another article full of unnotable opera singers and venues, please, supply the link. --David Shankbone 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't think there is a way for me to link to paper. The problem is you think notability is an issue for a real encyclopedia when it is not. -196.207.32.38 12:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 196, I made it clear when I started this discussion, I'm not really interested in how policy applies to this case. So I'm not sure why your comment above is addressed to me. The thing that bugs me is the very poor quality of the photo. To see what I mean, take a look at the photo here on Wikipedia/Commons and compare it to the one on Steve Hopson's web site. Look especially along the edges of the girl's (lovely) body. If I were to guess - and I suppose we could ask him, if this really matters so much to you - it seems likely to me that Steve Hopson is probably releasing some of his photos as a promotional measure, but reducing their quality in order to protect his intellectual property. Which is fine in a legal or business sense, but would be utterly against the spirit of free content that is so central to Wikipedia's mission. I strongly oppose the inclusion of this version of this photo, on the basis of its low quality. Which has nothing to do with WP policy. -Pete 16:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, the comment was actually directed at Bishonen. Like I said if you think it is a better image then keep it, but look at its placement and size as it intrudes on the rest of the article which the old one didn't. -196.207.32.38 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks the right size to me...Colin4C 09:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As this tempest in a teapot winds to a close, may I interest you all in a round of consensus cookies. They're mighty tasty, but there's one catch: you'll find it's very difficult to talk while chewing on consensus cookies. Cheers! -Pete 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Choco chip cookie.pngChoco chip cookie.pngChoco chip cookie.pngChoco chip cookie.png

Note: due to questions raised by Pete above and the general concerns about the quality of the photo, I have uploaded the identical version of the photo as it appears on my website. I had no intention, as Pete suggests, of violating "the spirit of free content that is so central to Wikipedia's mission." I also have no dog in the hunt over the question of the caption. As an aside, I don't think the new photo of an award show really captures the spirit of a performance, but will leave the selection of the photo to other editors. SteveHopson 13:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, it's a good photo, thanks for uploading the full quality version. -Pete 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Poledancing[edit]

The time and place where poledancing originated seems to be a bit of a sexy mystery. Anybody here have the slightest clue? If so, that might be useful info to add to the article Colin4C 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fast Freddy and the Playboys Article[edit]

Why was this entire article removed?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948758-2,00.html

Above is just one Source for the below article, adding historical value to "Striptease", and I AM Scot Free so it is a legitimate article, As I lived it.

COULD THIS VERY IMPORTANT HISTORICAL GROUP AT LEAST GET A SHORT RECOGNITION IF AS DID "Chipendales" on the page and have your own editors do it the justice it deserves historically please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenwise (talkcontribs) 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The First Pioneers and Most Popular of all Travelling Male Entertainment Dance Troups was "Fast Freddy and the Playboys" Famously billed as "The King of Male Strippers" with "The Sexiest Show on The Planet" Featuring "Scot Free", Who was also the First Male in the History of Stripping to Win the Coveted World Champion Trophy as "Entertainer Of the Year" at the World Famous Ponderosa Sun Club in Roselawn Ind. in 1984, performing against more than 40 Top National Female Acts in the same category, Scot Free walked away with the Six Foot Trophy after performing for the Crowd of Thousands his popular Magicians Act with numerous large trained Parrots and Stunning Magic Tricks, even producing a Rabbit out of his Hat. His assistant being none other than "Fast Freddy" himself. The famously popular and longest running traveling group of "Playboys" was featured nationwide with TV appearances on ABCs 20/20, The Today Show,The Phil Donahue Show, The Sally Jesse Raphael Show, The Rikki Lake Show...Etc.Ect. With articles in many national magazines including... Time Magazine, Playboy Magazine, Hawaii Magazine,(to name only a few) and Scot Free was a Playgirl Model who also appeared in the Magazine. Other Famous Members included, and still performing today are Irv Cass aka "Ringo" who continues to travel worldwide and was the 1st Place Winning Performer in Memphis as the Worlds Best "Tribute to Elvis Artist" Irv is also featured in the critically acclaimed 1999 Popular Movie "Almost Elvis" performing in Elvis' own Hometown of Memphis, TN. Also noted is Playboy P.J Lewis who Won 1st Place at the International Michael Jackson Impersonation Contest in Honolulu, HI. in the mid 80s and can now still be seen performing on occasion a Tribute to "Prince" at the World Famous "Sugar Shack" in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Fast Freddy and The Playboys went on to great success with a Huge National Fanbase, even participating with a Red Text Headline Grabbing Float in the Veterans Day Parade in Fast Freddys (Real name Fred Byler) Hometown in Michigan. The Group traveled nationwide to sellout ladies only crowds for well more than a decade, always playing strictly to audiences of "FEMALE ONLY" shows, with attendance at many shows in the thousands. Also Producing an album of songs written and performed by Fast Freddy and The Playboys entitled "For Ladies Only". After disbanding, "The Playboys" went on to tour with Master Host and MC, "Scot Free" (Real Name K. Wise). The sudden passing of "Fast Freddy" brought out Scores of Loyal Fans, News Organizations and Onlookers to attend a Large Ceremony to commemorate his contribution to the New Phenomenon he had helped to create, giving the female sex their very own and Very First True "Ladies Night Out"...In the History of the World! Kenwise 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you do a precis of the material instead of just downloading a whole lot of stuff from somewhere else on the internet? I am only one editor here, but I do feel that the material you have provided could be cut down to fit the format of this article. More info could be provided in a seperate wikipedia article if necessary. Colin4C 10:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Colin4C, Thank you for your reply...I will do as you request and agree with your summary of how to handle this

article, I like your idea of a separate article if necessary that could be linked from the original "Striptease" page, as there is quite a bit a information involved and a complete history of this very succesful Historical Dance Troup deserves it's own recognition in a separate article set apart from just the "broad" term of "Striptease".

As I understand it a "Precis" is... In order to demonstrate that you have assimilated the central argument and proof of another scholar's critical interpretation, you must be able to summarize and even compose a precis of an argument.

A summary or a precis is NOT a personal interpretation of a work or an expression of your opinion of the idea; it is, rather, an exact replica in miniature of the work, often reduced to one-half of its size, in which you express the complete argument!


Please give me a day or so to summarize the article to fit the standardization to comply with the Wikipedia format and I will resubmit the article along with more documentation including a photo or photos to add to the separate article, possibly a visual of the tour Poster would be great and the best visual to apply within the separate article.

Thank you again for your suggestions and I'm certain that I can comply with your wishes so that Wikipedea can expand it's knowledge base on the REAL HISTORY of Male Exotic Dancers. It is a field that is certainly misinterpreted in todays society and the facts surrounding it's inception and Critical thinking is an important and vital topic in modern education to to fully understand the impact on womens lives this new phenomenon created.

I agree that now it is a normal part of most cities and towns, yet... at it's inception/beginning it was clearly "The Talk of the Nation" and a brand new oulet for Women in American History. Thus, it deserves it's own place in your wonderful medium of information, Wikipedia!

Respectfully,

Kenneth D. Wise, President, ArtWise International Fine Art, Palm Beach, Fl... www.Art-Wise.com

http://art-wise.com/kenwise.htm <-Meet Me at this link (click or copy and paste into your browser) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenwise (talkcontribs) 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Kenwise 12:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fast Freddy and the Playboys (Pecis)

Fast Freddy and the Playboys (Precis)[edit]

Fast Freddy and The Playboys...Billed as "The King of Male Strippers" and "The Sexiest Show on The Planet" Pioneered the Travelling Male Dance Troup with over a Decade of Success. Featured on national TV shows including ABCs 20/20, The Today Show,The Phil Donahue Show, The Sally Jesse Raphael Show, The Rikki Lake Show. Feature articles in Time, Playboy, and Oahu Magazines. Top Playboy and Playgirl Model "Scot Free" (Real Name Ken Wise) named First Male in History to win the Six Foot Tall World Champion Trophy for "Entertainer of the Year" at Ponderosa Sun Club, Roselawn, In. (1984). Playboys include Irv Cass, World Champion 1999 International "Images of Elvis" Impersonator Competition, Memphis, Tn. Appeared in the Award Winning Documentary by John Paget "Almost Elvis". Playboy P.J. Lewis, First Place Winner "International Michael Jackson Dance Contest'" Honolulu, Hi. (1985). Recording Artist "Fast Freddy..For Ladies Only" Album (1980). (Real name Fred Byler). The Group Toured Nationally to a Sold Out Fanbase, with attendance in the thousands at most venues. Always to "Female Only" crowds.

Hi Colin4C, I believe the above text to be more of what you are looking for in an article on this topic. Please advise.

Here is the Image to use with article uploaded to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A1A_Fast_Freddy_and_The_Playboys_Thumbnail.jpg

Kenwise 19:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the same image in a larger format uploaded to WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A1A_Fast_Freddy_and_The_Playboys_Tour_Best_Visual.jpg

Kenwise 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on male striptease but it might be worth your while looking at the Chippendales dancers article on the wikipedia as an idea on how to write such an article. As for this present striptease article note that it is an encylopedia entry not a promotional service for dance troupes male or female. If Fast Freddy and co are historically or artistically or in any other noteworthy they should get a mention, if not, not. Its not my place to dictate what goes in this article but a reasonable thing to do would be to read the whole thing and then figure out how Freddy and co fit into the grand scheme of world striptease history and therefore how much space they should be alloted. Better to start small and expand as necessary rather than putting down some enormous screed to begin with IMHO. Colin4C 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Colin4C,

I very much appreciate your time and insight, I can assure you that I have no intentions of any promotional services for anyone whatsoever, Those days are decades in the past for me. My only intention is to give credence to the wonderful memories "Fast Freddy and The Playboys" created for the hundreds of thousands who witnessed this new phenomenon in person and the Millions of Americans who saw it for the very first time on so many major television shows, magazines and newspaper headlines throughout our great nation, "Only In America Could Such a Great Thing Happen"! That said...I will take your constructive writing skills and ideas to heart and rework the article for inclusion in Wikipedea. As to the "Historically and Artistically Noteworthy" relevance of "Fast Freddy and the Playboys", that fact is certainly without question as I am certain you agree. I will absolutely take your advice and appreciate your professionalism. Give me a while please to undo the "Screed" and I will send the rewrite to you when I have reworked the entry to meet with your criteria, for your editorial expertise. That way, we at least have a foundation laid to build on, as you so eloquently suggested. I feel that once it is included, then, and only then will Wikipedia be giving the full story and this dance groups rightful placement in the long history of the profession. Certainly you are in agreement with me that the visual JPG that I have presented far outweighs the one of "Tigger" that is presently on the page. I think that visual represents more of a Jester or a Clown than a performance, while the visual I presented is far more accurate to represent that particular part of the article IMHO. I am aware it is not the visual you would have chosen now that you are given a choice (or an addition). If I am correct, that "Tigger" visual is for the "Sexy Gay Male" section and there is no representational visual for the "Male Dancer" section. (until now)

Respectfully, Kenwise 06:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Fast Freddy and The Playboys- Scot Free a.k.a. Ken Wise-Historical Events and Timeline[edit]

"Fast Freddy and The Playboys" created by Fred Byler, and billed as "The King of Male Strippers", from Niles, Michigan. The first group of its kind and the pioneers of the traveling Male Dance Troup. Performing and singing to Female Only audiences across the United States throughout the 1980s to sold out crowds numbering in the thousands at a single venue. They traveled nationally as a group for more than a decade. Recording Artist Album Titled "Fast Freddy..For Ladies Only"(1980). The group was known for always arriving by Stretch Limosines wearing thier matching trademark white tailed tuxedos with red bow tie and cumberbunds. Historically the first male exotic dancers to be seen by millions of Americans on many major television shows including including ABCs 20/20, The Today Show,The Phil Donahue Show, and The Sally Jesse Raphael Show, Etc. They were also featured in numerous national magazine articles including Time, Playboy, and Oahu Magazines. Leading Playboy and Playgirl Model "Scot Free" (Real Name Ken Wise) was named First Male in Striptease History to win the coveted Six Foot Tall "World Champion" Trophy for "Entertainer of the Year" (1984) at The Ponderosa Sun Club, Roselawn, IN. competing against over 40 top national female acts for the title. Much unlike the popular group known as Chippendales "Fast Freddy and The Playboys" brought a very classy show to hundreds of hometowns, large and small... rather than the ladies traveling to one single nightclub in Los Angeles, CA.

Hi Colin...

Here is a quote from one of your editors from above on this page: 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)

Another quote from this page on Images: 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)

Hi Colin, Surely you agree that the tour poster I own and have submitted far outweighs any image on this page thus far. Images links are above in a previous writing. One thumbnail and One larger image. The Poster is very classy, very well represented and professional quality.

I feel it is clear that this page could really use a good image of "Real Male Dancers" that does not only apply to only the Gay community. Agreed?

I have written the article so that it in no way is a promotion for anyone or anything, as Fred Byler is no longer alive and I have been for decades out of the profession. In case you are interested, I was the "Cowboy" in that particular tour poster. Fast Freddy is in the center. Should you decide to notate that under the poster.

My main concern is that Fred Byler gets his due for all he did for the genre, some may not agree with the lifestyle but you can not disagree the impact on society as a whole that was "Fast Freddy and The Playboys"

In Short, the article is missing a HUGE gap in the history of the truth regarding the phenomenon started by Fast Freddy in the 80s. Without mention of same, the Striptease page may as well be null and void IMHO.

Thank you ever so much for all your time and consideration. if you feel the need to shorten the article before posting, just don't take out the historical events and facts.

ALSO A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS...The tour poster will be the "Highlight of the entire page" alone!

"Fast Freddy" (Fred Byler) is looking down on us as I type...I just know it! Let us give him his due after these decades. He really was truly a visionary and brought joy to millions of women who otherwise were bored to death just sitting at home knitting socks for ungrateful husbands. What a great showman he was...He was not a stripper... He was an Entertainer and singer of Great Magnitude...Let us not forget also, THE FIRST IN WORLD HISTORY to do what he did!

I know you will do the right thing. Reread all my articles to get the full picture Colin, I have put a great deal of energy and thought into this. It's not everyday that one becomes a World Champion and the very first at something that has been around for thousands of years! This is great material for wikipedia IMHO! it really does deserve it's own page, you have tons of material now to make it so! Why it is so important to me now decades later even surprises me.

Maybe it is because I have kept a journals since 1976 and opened my safe a month or so ago and started to reminisce.

Maybe you simply don't realize how HUGE this was in the 1980s for the female gender! If you want, in the future I can send you additional material, Articles and photos to add to the page. yet, for now...let's do as you suggested and start small and see what happens. I know for a fact there are still MILLIONS of women still out there that remember "Fast Freddy and The Playboys" and smile from ear to ear!!!

Now I leave it in your very capable hands to do them all justice, We were the best of the best, from coast to coast! Wikipedia is incomplete without a memorialization to that wonderful period decades ago!

Please remember, before "Fast Freddy and the Playboys"...there was nothing for women because as far back as The origins of striptease as a performance art it has existed and even been proven from ancient Babylonia. That is thousands of years!

Bear in Mind...There is NOT ONE famous Chippendale Dancer...Just an endless supply of nameless young, mostly talentless young bodybuilder types that go on and go off, never to be heard from again after the curtain falls.

The only famous name (ever) from the Chippendales was Paul Snider who turned out to be a murderer who killed 1980s Playmate of the Year Dorothy Stratten and then himself. yet he gets a mention. Strange as it may seem, they always said truth is stranger than fiction. Fast Freddy had pressed an Album in 1980 and been on tour for a while before that ex gas station attendant stole his idea.

Your question was, is "Fast Freddy and the Playboys' worthy of a "Historical Entry"? I believe I have proved this point to no end. Without question, Over and over again, You have the power on your keyboard to make it happen my friend!

I Thank you Colin and look forward to how you represent "Fast Freddy and The Playboys" on your meritorious and informative compilation of subject matter.

As for my magniloquent, you can clearly see my dedication to this project. Once again, there is no intent to advertise any person, product or to promote any profitable entity whatsoever. This is solely an encyclopedic article for historical value.

Respectfully yours,


Kenneth D. Wise, President, ArtWise International Fine Art, Palm Beach, Fl... www.Art-Wise.com

Here is the Image to please use with article uploaded to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A1A_Fast_Freddy_and_The_Playboys_Thumbnail.jpg

Here is the same image in a larger format uploaded to WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A1A_Fast_Freddy_and_The_Playboys_Tour_Best_Visual.jpg Kenwise 15:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Kenwise (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Stripper Anthems[edit]

This section has been deleted by User:Gwernol without any discussion on the talk page. Do you agree with him?:

So what is this list? Is it a list of songs that mention striptease in their title? Is it a list of songs that are used by strippers? Is it a list of songs that are somehow related to striptease? Where is the source (or sources) that says these particular songs are linked to striptease in a particular way. It looks a lot like original research - just a collection of songs that someone thinks are somehow related to striptease. It breaks our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view (especially the section on "You can leave your hat on") and verifability since there is no sourcing that these songs are all "Stripper anthems", whatever that phrase means.
If someone can define what a stripper anthem is, and source that these songs fall into that definition, the section can be valuable. Gwernol 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy to provide references for some at least of these songs, showing that they are either about striptease and/or used as backing tracks for strippers. But I am just wondering whether it is a general wikipedia policy that lists of songs on a certain subject like 'love songs' or a certain genre such as 'country and western songs' should each be individually referenced to demonstrate that they are the type of song in question. If that is indeed the general wikipedia policy I am willing to comply with it. Colin4C (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:LIST above, lists need to comply with verifiability and not fall under original research just like all other material in an article, so, yes, they pretty much do need to be sourced. Generally this is a good article, it seems a shame to mar it with such a poor section. With proper sourcing and a good definition of what this list contains, it would be a useful addition Gwernol 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Edit[edit]

I have just removed this edit as out of chronological order and incorrectly sourced:

This type of dancing also derived from religious worship. The first evidence of stripping is shown in worshiping the Gods and Goddesses. It was believed that if women danced in a way commonly defined as stripping for a certain Goddess, it would further her chances of fertility. Women would dance for the Goddess in front of a temple or other point of worship and then a man would pay her for intercourse. The money would be given to the Goddess as a sacrifice in hopes that the woman would then be fertile and become pregnant.[1]

Any comments? Colin4C (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious edit cited to a non-existent source. Good revert, I'd say. Dekkappai (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Current image on top[edit]

That girl in Sexy_dancer_03.jpg, currently used on top, looks like she is ready to drop death. I personally like the other one, Sexy_dancer_02.jpg, much more, so I have removed 03, and moved 02 to the top. I do think a better alternative is possible however. Cheers, Face 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think much of the current picture of Lola Bel Aire. Her hair is grey! Stressful job, no doubt...but if any of the editors here see her - tell her to change her hair colour fast if she wants tips from me...Colin4C (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Striptease girl?[edit]

Just wondering whether the girl in the new photo at the auto show is actually stripping, or merely pole dancing? Also, she looks a bit mannish to me...so calling her a 'girl' might be open to question....Colin4C (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd think we should have an image of one of the classic strippers-- Lili St. Cyr, Blaze Starr, Gypsy Rose Lee, Sally Rand, etc... But if any image is allowed to stand up to Wikipedia's Mad-Hatter/Kafkaesque/Draconian image-policies, leave it alone, I say. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this true?[edit]

This latest addition to the article is unreferenced:

"A more specific variation of the "friction" lap dance, used both in strip clubs and in private, is known as a "stripper shortcake". A stripper shortcake involves a woman thrusting her vagina back and forth on the man's erect penis while it is flipped upwards (with or without pants) causing the man, woman, or both to reach orgasm without actual intercourse."

I'm sort of wondering why this alleged practice is (allegedly) called "stripper shortcake" and why we need graphic descriptions of penises (allegedly) "flipping upwards" and vaginas "thrusting"...(allegedly...) Colin4C (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

why u should strip[edit]

who doesnt because u get more sex. then if u where a mum if u want to strip have sax withas much men as possible if u cant get men practise on a long tedy. and then go downtown to all sex shops u can find and then buy sex toys, next get a pole and at last go to the local night culb ans ask for the job (for all sex with men use a condom) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.30.81 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

unnecessary images and self promo[edit]

this many pictures of strippers is unnecessary. even the article on pornography doesn't have this many photos of a sexual nature. i am taking out the most glaring example (2 photos of the same girl), please discuss here if you have issues with this. untwirl(talk) 06:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, one photo of the girl is enough. Hotcrocodile (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Nudity is not sex. The nude is a classical theme of art, as in the paintings of Titian etc. Note, also, that the wikipedia is not censored in order to conform with the ideology of American Puritanism. Colin4C (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Porn is not art. (I haven't seen the images in question, but the naked woman engaging in pornography at the top of the article is already inappropriate, so ...) -- Newagelink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

I removed a couple images from the article. The "fully nude" girl was just ridiculously unneeded. Does anybody not know what fully nude means? I'm all for "art" and images used for education, but when the images are of a woman engaged in pornography and don't actually educate anybody, I don't think it's appropriate for an article people of all sorts of ages will be viewing.72.201.251.230 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucas Cranach the Elder-Adam and Eve 1533.jpg
As a matter of fact, a lot of people are quite ignorant of the subject and substitute myths and shock-horror stories in place of rational analysis. Hopefully this wikipedia article sheds more light on the subject. On the matters you raise, some people are indeed confused about whether strippers do take all their clothes off and confuse them with "topless go-go dancers" or something else they half remember from their youth. As per refs given in article, striptease is an art form combining music and dance not pornography. There are even rumours that pole-dancing will become Olympic event! Btw did you know that the original Ancient Greek Olympians competed in the nude? Maybe you think that they were "engaging in pornography" also and want to censor all images of that on the wikipedia as well? Here's another gratuitous fully nude shot, set in the Garden of Eden, that you might want to censor also: Colin4C (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
My only objection to the photos is that they lean too recent. I think the article would better off if the first image, at least, were of some classic stripper who is more synonymous with the genre-- in the U.S. I'd guesstimate this to be from the Gypsy Rose Lee, Sally Rand, Lily St. Cyr generation up to the Carol Doda/Chesty Morgan era-- early '70s. Though Wikipedia image policies being what they are, we probably have to use only photos that users have taken themselves, which limits us to less-than-professional photography, recentism and relatively obscure names. Really there ought to be more coverage of the full history of the genre in general, with coverage of more significant performers... As far as the moral outrage implied in the objection-- I looked through the images again just now, and can't see how any rational person would find these photos improper for an article on striptease. Not unless one comes to this article intentionally looking to be outraged. Dekkappai (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Was that Adam and Eve picture painted to stimulate sexually? Equivocating stripping with nudism, cultural norms, or artistic portrayals of religious beliefs is invalid. I wouldn't label a picture of Romulus and Remus being raised by wolves without any clothes on as child pornography either. Just download the picture to your hard drive and you won't have to come back here every time you want to view it.72.201.251.230 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the article opens up with "The origins of striptease as a performance art are disputed and various dates and occasions have been given from ancient Babylonia to twentieth century America." So the claim that it is an art form is dubious even by the article's own words.72.201.251.230 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The claim is referenced in the article:
"In December 2006, a Norwegian court ruled that striptease is an art form and made strip clubs exempt from value added tax."[2] Colin4C (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Roberts
  2. ^ BBC News. Stripping is art, Norway decides. December 6, 2006.
My mistake, I didn't realize that the Norwegian judicial system was the equivalent of an English Wikipedia consensus. This changes everything.72.201.251.230 (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

H.L. Mencken[edit]

Anyone else care to weigh in on the continuous removal of the H.L. Mencken citation? ('H.L. Mencken is credited with coining the word "ecdysiast", from "ecdysis", meaning "to molt". He did so in response to a request from a stripteaser who requested a "more dignified" way to refer to her profession.') I didn't put it in, but I think it's interesting and perfectly appropriate here. Another editor is removing it as trivia. Dekkappai (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is trivia, but it's in the right place - not in a section of its own, and when you get down to it that's what Wikipedia (indeed any encyclopedia) is about - collation of trivia. I can see why it gets removed, as only a tiny minority will be aware of this, but that's why we put things like that in. It's a cited reference, and the fact is on the first page of the linked PDF - I say it stays. a_man_alone (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Right-- Those bulleted lists of disconnected random facts (usually unsourced) are fair target for deletion. But that's not what this is. Any article is going to be, mostly, a well-organized collection of trivia. Dekkappai (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree - articles are not collections of trivia. They have a purpose. I fail to see what is the point of the Mencken quote. If that stays in then the use at any other time of any sourced word would be justified on the same basis. That is, just because something is sourced does not automatically make it appropriate, as is the case here.Ewawer (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course almost any one sentence pulled at random out of any article is a piece of trivia. If every sentence of an article were "notable" rather than "trivial", then every sentence would deserve its own article. Instead, the subject of the article is "notable", and the trivia is gathered and shaped to flesh out the subject and build a full article. In this case, the subject is striptease, and the Mencken quote is a piece of trivia which deals directly with the subject of this article. Dekkappai (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The argument here is turning into "what is the definition of trivia" - One persons trivia is anothers essential knowledge. What is the difference between the Mencken quote and any of the TV or film listings that contain stripper references? I don't want to see any of those films (especially not showgirls - yikes!) - they hold no interest for me, but I acknowledge that others may find them interesting and have a valid place in the article. This is not a random word connected with the article, but a valid and sourced alternative name for the actual act of stripping ecdysing. Sourced, relevent, applicable & interesting. Ticks all the boxes I think. a_man_alone (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I have reverted the removal of external links by Thirteen Squared as I don't think the WP:EL policy is as clear cut in this instance. Neither site actually requires registration to view information, only to post - and this is sensible given the sexually orientated topic.

Also, the information available on each site is valuable and pertinent to the subject matter. WP:EL doesn't actually forbid linking to such sites, only that "normally" they should be avoided. I'm prepared to be outvoted, but think it should be at least discussed first. -- a_man_alone (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no other links atm I don't see any reason not to include them. Biofase flame| stalk  19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yah my link was removed too, probably marked as spam i don't know, but it was a volontary entry totally on the subject. It was a membership site, but was on topic. Anyway, maybe i can put my email as a reference, since i've been working in this field as a photographer and I have quite an interesting experience for people seeking valuable info on that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unplug (talkcontribs) 20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your site was removed because it failed the external links policy. True, it was marked as vandalism[3], when it could have been more accurately marked as a failure of the wp:el, however the editor in question did in fact leave you a note telling you this on your talkpage - perhaps you haven't seen it yet? Link is here, just in case. But nevertheless, such a paysite offers nothing constructive to the wikipedia, nor the page in general. The fact that despite initially looking quite professional, the site is full of spelling and/or grammatical errors doesn't help your case either. a_man_alone (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing Pictures[edit]

Lola Bel Aire performing a striptease.
rightt

I've replaced Lola Bel Air with picture of another stripper. Nothing wrong with Lola but she has been on for a long time and I'm sure the audience wants some variety...Colin4C (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - if the audience wants variety they should subscribe to any of the thousands of model galleries on the web. There's nothing wrong with the new picture - just as there was nothing wrong with the old, but change for change's sake should be avoided. a_man_alone (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why change and variety should be avoided in the wikipedia? I know of no anti-variety wikipedia rules to that effect. Anyway, disregarding the irrelevency of which picture came first, or whether or not wikipedia has an anti-variety rule, which of the following pics would editors prefer for the intro? The one on the left or the one on the right? Colin4C (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the changes, and don't think the revert issue was whether there is an anti-variety rule but whether the change was necessary. I am also on the side of "change for change's sake" should be avoided. Content provided in good faith should be modified only if the edit is intended, in good faith, to improve the material. Yesterday I thought about commenting, but thought the issue had resolved itself.
If I had to pick one, I actually do prefer the older image because it is a better illustration of what the article is trying to convey. I am not interested in encouraging an edit war, but will add another no vote on the change. Either way, on the American tradition section the way the image replacement was done unbalanced the composition. Fixed that. Whether or not the person in the image was in the U.S. is not the issue if it illustrates the concept. The text in some places is in more of a need of update than anything else.
Now that I take another look at it, the new picture is probably a better fit than the auto show illustration in the American tradition section. Propose moving the auto show picture to the Recent history section once more content is added. Right now the image does not look good there. Wallanon (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
No real preference for either image here, so I default to not changing-- no sense in making the images as constantly-changing as the rules are around WP... However, as I've said before, I'd prefer the lead image to be of a major, classic, iconic stripper, though I realize WP's rules (on Fair use images, this time) stand in the way of improving the article in this way... Dekkappai (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
My $0.02 as a mostly-uninvolved editor: the three images currently in the lede section are similar enough that one would be sufficient, three seeming like overkill. The rest of the article is well-illustrated, so I would suggest simply removing two. No preference which, as long as all are GFDL. / edg 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed File:Prinzzess (Penthouse Pet).jpg because it does not appear to illustrate a striptease. IT's a picture of a nude woman in an empty arena. No actual stripping going on, and not a realistic context. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've put in new picture of real pole-dancing stripper (note pole), really stripping (note removed bra on the stage beside her) in front of real audience (partially seen to left) to illustrate pole-dancing section. Colin4C (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Pole-dancing[edit]

The citation at www.responsesource.com seems to be a press release, and I can't find another source verifying Belle Jangles at Mugwumps strip club in Oregon in 1968. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems an odd thing to make up and - as it happened in 1968 - it doesn't seem to be advertising. And it's not a wikipedia mirror - which is the usual source of duff info. Anybody here from Oregon who can shed light on this? Colin4C (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is that we needs to verify our statements from reliable sources. A compendium of press releases is not a source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The statement may indeed be correct, but "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think press releases are more inaccurate and unreliable than any other source of information used by wikipedia? Isn't it in the financial interest of press releasers to disseminate accurate information - say about the date a new film will be released? There is nothing else in that press release that seems to inaccurate - I even assume that the phone numbers are accurate! It's not as if it were the febrile rantings of a blogger. There may be indeed be POV pushing, but I don't think it applies in the case of something which happened in 1968. Also, if we include the cite, readers of the wikipedia can indeed check that the material included derives from that particular source and make their own minds up about how accurate it is. If we delete the cite they will be scratching their heads in bemusement. It is not for us wikipedia editors to make up their minds for them about what they are allowed to look at and what they are allowed to think about it. Almost all sources used in history are not guaranteed 100% accurate - to apply this standard would mean deleting most of the wikipedia. We could expand the statement if you like, to be more explicit about this: "According to a press release by Polestar the first pole-dance was by Miss Belle Jangles in 1968 at Mugwumps strip club". Anyway, I do agree with you that more cites on this particular case would be good. If after extensive research it transpires that there is no Mugwumps strip club and that Miss Belle Jangles is a myth then we would be justified in deleting the statement. Colin4C (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
We could spend a lot of time discussing whether press releases are likely to be accurate but we have a policy on verifiability and reliable sources precisely so that we don't have to. If you can establish Polestar as a company "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", by all means do so, preferably at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.responsesource.com. Until there is a reliable source for the assertion then it is better to say nothing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says nothing about the inadmissability of press releases as sources or on the necessity of wilkipedia editors conducting personal investigations as to their "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It does enjoin that common sense should be used: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Colin4C (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Er...using my common sense...I did a bit of googling and seem to have found the website where the whole story of Belle Jangles and Mugmumps presumably originated from: http://www.xmag.com/archives/9-11-may02/100years.html . Basically the story seems to be part of some kind of a spoof on the history of the Oregon adult entertainment scene...and is thus er...presumably...totally untrue. For instance I find it hard to believe that "Shrapna Kunst" and "Olga Stegosaurus" were Oregon's first lesbian couple as the article claims...Therefore the stuff here about Belle Jangles and Mugwumps should be deleted. Colin4C (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Auletrides[edit]

The claim that these erotic dancers and prostitutes performed strip-tease is cited to Baasermann, Lugo (1968). The oldest profession: a history of prostitution. Stein and Day. pp. 7–9. ISBN 0450002349.  but I don't see it there. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The source says that they danced naked...so maybe we should just make that claim in the text rather than saying they did a striptease. Btw I think I am right in saying that female (and male) garb in Ancient Greek times consisted of a single garment (chiton) folded in a complex way and held by a brooch, and that underwear hadn't been invented yet, therefore any stripteases would be of brief duration. There IS an account, and a famous painting, of a Greek courtesan being stripped naked though having her single garment ripped off in one tug by her defence counsel, but that prob doesn't count as an orthodox striptease... Colin4C (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

TV Shows[edit]

RE: True Stories-Best Undressed (2010) A documentary about the Miss Nude Australia Contest which is for dancers. Partly filmed from the Crazy Horse Revue, Adelaide, Australia. Screened 22-6-2010 on Channel 4.

There is no television station called Channel 4 in Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs more pics[edit]

This article needs more pictures of fully nude dancers. It is just missing it. Any one have some pictures of fully nude dancers, or want to find some and put them in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.101.65 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

Hi, The stuff on Apotropaic nudity, or nudity as curse doesn't seem to have anything to do with strip-tease routines, which is obviously not just about being nude. The stuff on Japan can stay, although it isn't really an independent tradition, and there is no info on other countries, so it looks slightly stranded. I slightly shortened the quote from German play to the relevant section. Also reordered it to be more chronological.Noodleki (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand these arguments at all, please elaborate, with more specificity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The main point is the section on Apotrpaic nudity has nothing to do with strip-tease, except that they both involve nudity. It simply doesn't belong in the article.Noodleki (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Since it had no erotic function, I agree. I've removed it, and the African curse section that followed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your last edit said that you added some content, reorganized, but didn't note that you also eliminated some sourced content with no discussion. Please don't do that again. The talk page is here for a reason, please use it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was using an older version that didn't have the Roland Barthes quote. Apart from that nothing else was removed, except the quote from the German play which has been shortened to the relevant section. Parts were either added or just rearranged to make it more chronological.Noodleki (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of striptease[edit]

Ok, so let's talk.

I'm with BMK on this one, that the term "dance" does not need to be emphasised, but possibly for slightly different reasons that he does - althoguh the end result is the same.

  • We don't need to reiterate the term "dance" because it's already mentioned prior "...is an erotic or exotic dance..." - so we've already covered the dance part. Repetition is unnecessary, and makes the article look cluttered.
  • I also agree with BMK that the emphasis is on "strip" - hence the term "striptease"
  • If a person stands still and undresses "...in a seductive and sexually suggestive manner...." then yes - they are performing a striptease. I suppose you could argue that anybody undressing themselves are performing a striptease if they are being observed by another. A while back I removed the link to Barbarella, as I don't consider her to be doing a striptease - she's just undressing, but it was reverted for exactly that reason - if observed it's a striptease. And fair enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)