Talk:Stripper/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Stripper. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
References, references, references - can we get a few?
Come on folks, there has to have been enough articles in Maxim, Playboy, various Metro editions, Men's Health, and just about every other "lad magazine" to provide inline citations for just about everything said. Any help with cleaning this mess up? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Male strippers
I have changed the hatnote of this article. It previously said:
It now says:
This is my reasoning:
- This article now has a section called "Male strippers" which was presumably created when the old "Male stripper" article was merged into this one approximately two years ago. Male strippers are also mentioned in the lead, and there are other references to male strippers in the text. The disambiguation page includes an option for "male stripper", which simply directs you to the "Male strippers" section of this article. Hence the hatnote as it stood was, in the context of male strippers, both untrue and unhelpful.
Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:COI and Template:POV tags
Hey, Rms125a@hotmail.com. Regarding this edit, will you explain why you placed those tags on the article? Per these templates, these tags should only be added if the reasons for why they were added are explained on the article talk page. In this recent discussion at Template talk:POV, for example, you can see that we are discussing that drive-by tagging in the case of such templates is discouraged. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I did not consider adding well-deserved templates to an out of control article that I had just heavily edited, but I apologize if it appeared that I had committed " drive-by tagging". As for the templates, I have hardly seen an article more deserving of these particular templates. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be the first to admit that this article needs work and is greatly in need of WP:RS, but frankly if someone is editing the article and either is or was a stripper, I'd welcome the expert viewpoint. The COI tag seems out of place and baseless without proof. There are idiots trying to add promotional content to this article all the time, but they rarely put more than an external link or two. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not that the people who have provided such a lot of unsourced but apparently first hand info are strippers themselves, after all as they used to say defensively on Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything wrong with that" but rather that the extreme length and lack of sourcing indicate that someone has a possible business interest or personal obsession. But I'll compromise -- if we leave the NPOV tag, which you also removed, I will agree that the COI tag may be redundant. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rms125a@hotmail.com (Quis separabit?), besides the WP:COI tag, which is now removed, you have not explained why the article should have a POV tag. That is what I mean by drive-by tagging. You should explain on this talk page why the tag is warranted so that editors know what POV problems there are, or the tag should be removed; the tag's template is clear about that. If I thought that the POV problems were evident, I would not be asking you to explain. Too often, editors add tags without reading the rules for those tags. In those cases, I or others will promptly and rightfully remove the tags, which is something that is being discussed in the aforementioned Template:POV discussion. And keep in mind, that like I mentioned there, people commonly misunderstand the WP:Neutral policy. In other words, they think that being neutral on Wikipedia means what it means in common discourse; it does not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I believe the POV tag belongs because the article is filled with assertive text, not merely neutral text but assertions, which are simply not backed up by sources. I preferred to put the tags rather than prematurely remove additional unsupported text and claims. Quis separabit? 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the templates, whcih I presume evolved from this discussion. The article has changed in the year since they were introduced, and if there are still issues - they need reminding about here, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stripper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323163835/http://www.llrlaw.com/pdfs/king_arthur_decision.pdf to http://www.llrlaw.com/pdfs/king_arthur_decision.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Point of handcuffs on bosom picture
Random photo, doesn't easily prove anything related to the Law section, gratuitous. Ping me, I am not watching this. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Recent deletions
Peanut284985 (talk · contribs), you need to base your deletions on our policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV, not your personal opinion on what belongs. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced speculation
Why are garbage "opinion" sentences allowed in this article without sources? Example: "In some cases this disguises blemishes or areas of their figure they are not comfortable with, or could simply be to prevent those parts of the outfit from being misplaced." Really? We need an encyclopedia to speculate that an all-nude stripper might leave some clothing on to cover up some cellulite or (perhaps) just because she's forgetful and might misplace her G-string before leaving the stage? - AppleBsTime (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Contradictions and Advice
The first few paragraphs establish how male strippers are now just as normal as female strippers, but almost every other paragraph refers to all strippers with feminine pronouns or even simply as 'female'. "Sexuality and gender bias" seems much more like advice than information. It seems to address male strippers in the first few sentences (approach women displaying open body language), then advises women on how to get male strippers to approach them(dancers avoid women who look unfriendly or mean). It becomes glaringly obvious that this is supposed to be advice when it says "In order to become approached, men must-" This is an encyclopaedia, not a pickup artist's book. (My apologies if I'm doing something wrong, I am very new to Wikipedia and I've never done more than fixing grammar and typos) Henriio (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)