Talk:Lesburlesque

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

Neutrality concerns[edit]

This quote from the article captures my concerns:

Singapore is a country with stringent controls on public nudity and Sukki's stance, and association with a Lesbian Burlesque troupe, demonstrates her feisty and unswerving dedication to furthering the cause of women's rights and gay rights in her native Singapore.

The cited source doesn't mention any of that. (In fact, it never mentions Lesburlesque by name.) The inference is that the writer of that text is connected with the troupe and is thus not neutral. The lack of neutrality is pervasive: I wouldn't quite say that it's full-on advertisement, but it's non-neutral POV. That non-neutral POV is likely from a conflict of interest, but I don't have solid to base that on. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Neurality Concerns[edit]

I have amended this section to include a reference to public nudity in Singapore's Miscellaneous Offences Act. No press release for Lesburlesque's association with The Singapore Burlesque Club is available but the fact that they are jointly hosting events and have reported their relationship publicly on social media and last Tuesday on stage at XS Malarkey, a comedy club in Manchester makes the arrangement between the two a matter of public knowledge. Not every article of fact can be backed up by a journal article. Increasingly news is being spread by social media.

Regarding citation required for Lesburlesque working with the Lesbian Community Project, that is covered in Amy Glendenning's article and Mancunian Matters. It requires no further citation. The reference is there to prove the existence and charitable status of the LCP.

The comment about citation regarding Lesburlesque being the only burlesque troupe that uses established drag king performers, logic should help to resolve the matter. It is not impossible to prove a lack of absence. It is possible to disprove this statement by finding an article that contradicts the assertion. However, since Wikipedia are insistent on reputable sourcing, disproving it should be a matter of your rigour and not mine. It is a statement of fact, a posteriori. In 1950 it would have been the case, a posteriori that Adolf Hitler was the only dictator in history to sport a small square moustache. Then came Robert Mugabe and a posteriori negated this fact. If some troupe comes along and ends the uniqueness of Lesburlesque's use of established drag kings, this remark will be removed. Until then it is impossible to provide a citation for the absence of something.

I trust this satisfies all concerns.

PS One final thing. I am a fan of Lesburlesque, I freely admit that. The fact that they are the only troupe in the UK that enable me to obtain sources for my ongoing academic work is very important to me. However, I cannot for the life of me see how anything I've written can be seen as advertising. They exist as a matter of public record. Their uniqueness is spelt out in the references provided. Nothing I have written has any kind of slant other than to provide a historical documentation of their existence in this esteemed encyclopaedia.

--LGBTQTrustee (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted some of the wording to avoid bald statements and added re-referencing the article by the MEN and Mancunian Matters to show the fundraising nature of the relationship between Lesburlesque and the Lesbian Community Project charity. The citation at the end of that sentence remains to demonstrate the legitimate existence and charitable status of the LCP. I can't see any other way of demonstrating the relationship between the two, other than by the sources used. --LGBTQTrustee (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more reliable sources independent of the group, the better. Also be aware of voice, that is stating items as facts in Wikipedia's voice should have a cite to it; whereas a statement "according to Foo ... " can be sourced to a source where we can verify Foo's statement. In that way we can remain neutral. The more exceptional the statement, the better the sourcing should be. However the group is considered an expert on itself so we can accept when they state when they were founded, how many members, etc. Insomesia (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course entirely understood. I'd be happy to take a steer on how to preserve the page and resolve the neutrality issue. So far, I could see a number of bald statements that I had made that required clearing up. I can't agree with the citation requirement regarding Lesburlesque's use of established drag king performers. Outside of Lesburlesque, though some performers on the UK circuit are gay, the majority of female burlesque performances are hermetically sealed in a hetero-normative mindset. The Guardian article demonstrates quite clearly that drag kinging is only just emerging from the lesbian margins. Why would a burlesque troupe have ever heard of them, let alone used them? The only discussion I can see is whether Lesburlesque are the first AND the only, or just the first. There's no way of providing citation for this. It is part of what makes Lesburlesque distinct and notable. It's use of drag kinging is mentioned in the Glendenning and Ponticelli articles. It is unprecedented in burlesque. To be clear, burlesque performers have often cross dressed, stuck on a beard and a female fit tuxedo to imitate a man, and during the routine off comes the beard and surface clothes and low and behold a woman in a corset and stockings is revealed. Lesburlesque has drag kings doing tradition drag king entertainment for a burlesque audience. It isn't part of what happens at a burlesque show in the UK. How do I cite for that?

The neutrality dispute, could you also give me a steer on how to resolve this. The initial statement regarding Singaporean law, has been backed up by referencing singaporean law. Are there any more edits required to bring the dispute to a resolution? --LGBTQTrustee (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that all content in the article must be verifiable to reliable sources. If the statement is that Lesburlesque is a troupe that uses drag kings, that's a statement where we can take the troupe's own word for it. If the statement is that they are the first or only troupe with drag kings, that's a statement that must cite a secondary source: a source independent of Lesburlesque. In other words, a claim of first/only is a claim that no other group has used drag kings (before them), and we can't use Lesburlesque as a source about other groups, only themselves.
Regarding the Singaporean law issue, the law wasn't what I took exception to. It was the statements about her "feisty and unswerving dedication" that weren't neutral. If the MyNews article said she was feisty, we could quote the article (or author of it) as calling her feisty. If the article said she spoke at a legislative hearing about women's rights, we could then say she's furthering the cause of women's rights, based on her testimony and the description of it in the source. Without that kind of backup, though, there's too much opinion in it to be used as a neutral description. For that matter, who appointed Sukki Singapora the "Ambassador of Burlesque for Singapore"? I'm pretty sure she wasn't appointed that by the government, so we need to make clear whether she calls herself that or has been called that by other parties.
To be clear, I think Lesburlesque is notable, even if we can't prove they're the first/only. They've gotten enough coverage that they pass WP:GNG. I think the tone of the article needs tightened, and I think that the more outside sources written about the troupe that can be cited—and the closer the text matches those sources and doesn't go off onto uncited descriptions—the stronger the article will be. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've taken out the reference to Lesburlesque being the only troupe using DK's. I think that when they gain more press, this might become more established. Until then it will not stand without the addition of unverifiable claims, and shall not return until then.
The issue surrounding Sukki's ambassadorial title does trouble me too. I don't know her well but I have managed to message Pixie who supplied me with a blog link. In it she seems to refer to herself as a representative of burlesque for Singapore so I've changed the wording to reflect this. I've also referenced the blog. The writer of the blog appears from the article to be a freelance journalist but her blog is not really identifiable. I'm concerned that this would not be a reasonable source. While I have included it, I am happy to remove it should it fall outside of the rigour for this encyclopaedia. In the meantime I've emailed the blogger to see if she will send a more creditable link for Sukki to a publication or whether she's prepared to be formally identified.
Lastly Pixie reminded me that she has been on the radio and engaged with a feminist blogger about some issues. If I can find those references and if there is anything that moves the article forward I will strengthen the article. She also told me that Nadeem Akhtar, the Guardian Journalist, also works with other publications and is seeking approval to tell Sukki's story. Of course, that will add meat to the article too.
I'm fairly certain that the article will become more solid as more press referencing becomes available.
Can you let me know if the neutrality concerns have been put to bed? --LGBTQTrustee (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to continue looking for sources and expanding the article, but I'm satisfied that the article is written neutrally and is not just a publicity piece for the troupe. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesburlesque&oldid=1208150360"