Talk:Lap dance/Archive 2

Vandalism Done to Article by Candleabracadabra -- Admins Please Respond
Without discussion on the article's Talk page, and possibly in an emotional state, Candleabracadabra, in a matter of minutes, has removed many paragraphs of referenced information and destroyed subsections from this article. Admins, you need to contain this impulsive and destructive behavior of Candleabracadabra by banning him from this page, and considering how destructive and impulsive his act was, you might want to remove him from Wikipedia altogether. And considering the comments (can be seen on Candleabracadabra's Talk page) of some of his supporters in this stunt, like Beyond My Ken ( a.k.a BMK, Grouchy Realist ) you might want to reprimand him as well. In the whole time that I have tried to clean up this neglected article, Beyond My Ken has been nothing but an abusive hindrance. Who needs that on Wikipedia?James Carroll (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * James Carroll, you really need to calm down and stop exhibiting extreme ownership behavior - please read WP:OWN to understand what I mean. "Vandalism" on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning, which you can read about at WP:VANDALISM.  What  did was not, in any sense of the word, on Wiki or off, "vandalism".  What he did was to edit the article according to his understanding of the subject and of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  I have not examined his edits in detail, perhaps I agree with him, perhaps I don't, or, most likely, something in between, but it's not "vandalism", and, most importantly, it's not your article, and you do not control its content. Now, you have made some very extensive alterations to the article recently, and some of those have been changed, and some of the changes have been discussed and some have not.  You have been WP:BOLD in your editing, and that's a good thing, but bold edits are subject to being reverted by editors who disagree with them.  When that happens, discussion then takes place on the talk page (here) -- that's the WP:BRD cycle.  In this case, we're not talking about a single edit, or a bunch of edits made all at the same time, you made substantial changes across a number of days, and Candleabracadabra is permitted to re-edit the article according to his consideration of what's best for it. I would suggest that rather than accuse C. of vandalism, and running to admins (who will not get involved in a dispuite about article content, I've told you that before), you should discuss here what parts of his edits you disagree with, and why.  Be specific, be calm, and be polite, don't make probably unwarranted assumptions about his motivations and state of mind, and perhaps you and C. and other interested editors can come to some consensus - but you're not helping the situation by screaming bloody murder about what is a perfectly normal and acceptable Wikipedia process. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have discussed with James Carroll on my talk page the problems with his changes. I have asked that any future discussion with him take place here so that everyone editing the article can be involved. What James Carroll has added is unhelpful and much of it destructive. The connection with Taxi dancing is tenuous at best. Also there is no clear lineage for the origin of lap dancing, and clubs other than the one he wants extensively credited also claim to have originated the practice and much earlier. Carroll's additions also put way too much emphasis on Taxi dancing which is covered in its own article. His version of the article also focuses solely on lap dancing in the U.S. He doesn't cover the history and evolution of lap dancing in Britain, Canada and elsewhere, moving those sections to a legal section and burying them under a extensive descriptions of a single reporters interviews with a lap dancer and detailed irrelevancies about the dot-com boom. He also adds many inappropriate links, including in the opening sentence to sex workers. Most of his arguments for other changes have been rejected by a series of editors, but that has done nothing to diminish the stridency of his belief that he's right. Much of what he writes is speculative and theoretical. As such it's not particularly encyclopedic. It also lacks neutrality, instead trying to promote certain views while diminishing others based on his "expertise". He has reverted me, but I hope that another editor will review carefully the two versions and restore the one that's consistent with policy and the best interests of our readers. If the present version is to be worked from I hope that my concerns will be addressed. The article as it is written now is highly problematic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, James Carroll reverted your changes as "vandalism", but I undid that, because they clearly are not "vandalism" but a difference of opinion about content, which needs to be dealt with here, and not via reversions. So - at least at the moment I write this - the article is in the state the you left it. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, James Carroll reverted me. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * James Carroll, just so you cannot say that you were not warned, I have pointed you to the Wikipedia definition of WP:VANDALISM, and it clearly doesn't apply to Candleabracadabra's edits to the article, so you are completely unjustified in reverting him, and then reverting me immediately afterwards, despite the very clear explanation I've posted above. You have now taken the first two steps into WP:EDITWARRING, which, if you continue on this path, will wind up with your being blocked by an admin for a short period of time.  By your actions, you have succeeded in turning the content dispute into a behavioral problem, which it has not been before, but, unfortunately for you, it is 'your behavior which will be the locus of any admin action.  You have a chance to back away from the brink: if you self-revert your most recent edit before anyone else does, it will not be considered to be a reversion.  Please consider doing this, calming down, and coming back and discussing your content differences with C. here, as called for by WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.  It's really the right thing to do. I'm going to post this on your talk page as well. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In C.'s defense, a lot of what James Carroll added was unsourced. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If other editor(s) think it's worth mentioning taxi dancing and including a bit about the dot-com boom in reliation to lap dancing in the U.S. section I have no objection. "Experts" are often frustrated that Wikipedia articles are not essays that agree with their viewpoints. James Carroll is most welcome to discuss the additions he supports and if there is sourced content that belongs in the article we will see that it's added appropriately (with due weight and balance). I hope he will engage the discussion in a respectful manner while focusing on the content and sourcing (rather than engaging in criticisms of other editors). Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me first be clear that I have not reviewed any changes made to the lap dance article for quite a few days, as I've been mostly busy off-Wikipedia. It will probably be a few more days before I can thoroughly digest what has actually taken place with this article's content recently. I do have some concerns based solely on what is stated above though, and I have been watching a few other talk pages where discussions about this page have been taking place.
 * "Also there is no clear lineage for the origin of lap dancing, and clubs other than the one he wants extensively credited also claim to have originated the practice and much earlier." This may, in fact, be true but removing established sourced info, instead of not adding other sourced info to counter these types of claims, isn't the way to go IMHO. I'm not an expert on the origins of lap dancing at all.
 * "His version of the article also focuses solely on lap dancing in the U.S. He doesn't cover the history and evolution of lap dancing in Britain, Canada and elsewhere" There are many articles on Wikipedia that have a U.S.-centric view, which is a problem for sure, but that doesn't mean that content that is relevant to one country only should be removed because content that is more relevant to other countries isn't yet present in a particular article. The laws on the sex industry in Canada have been undergoing some wild swings in recent years, as I tried to document in a thread that is now archived on this very talk page here. It's unclear to me how to proceed further to describe lap dancing in Canada, even given my somewhat extensive personal experiences there.
 * Again, I have not reviewed all of the recent changes to the article here, and if I am speaking out of turn...I apologize.
 * "Most of his arguments for other changes have been rejected by a series of editors, but that has done nothing to diminish the stridency of his belief that he's right." This I do emphatically agree with, and, as I think has been mentioned in above threads, this kind of behavior is borderline disruptive behavior by an editor that admittedly appears to have limited experience editing articles on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the idea of an article's neutrality or unbiased nature, there are other areas in our culture were we also strive to achieve an unbiased examination of phenomena, and that would be in our courts. Unlike Wikipedia, the courts do not seek unbiased examination by censoring individual statements of either prosecuting or defending lawyers just because a single statements in itself might have a political posture – the courts only move to censor statements when they do not have any documented evidence (sourced for us). Our court system believes that the best way to achieve an unbiased examination (what our neutrality policy wants to be) is to let the two adversarial forces (defense, prosecution) make as many statements as possibly provided that they are referenced with evidence. In the same way that our courts allow any statements with evidential reference to be entered into the court record, we should also allow any statements that are sourced to enter an article, and let the chips fall where they may. Only when all the sourced statements (evidence) in an article (court record) are examined as a whole, can we tell if the article itself was biased, or in WikiSpeak not neutral. If this were to be, or is, Wikipedia’s policy, then we should be very upset whenever an editor cuts such a massive proportion of sourced statements from an article in the same way that we would be incensed if we saw half the evidence in murder trial deleted from a court record. In this case Candleabracadabra's massive deletion contained 3 Sections and nearly half the article's bytes, and was executed with just a single edit command which had not been previously proposed upon the talk page.


 * Some, like Epicgenius, have suggested that my statements within the article are unsourced, but that is simply not true. My research is always very careful – as a history freak, research is what I live for. Just because I do not have a footnote after every sentence, does not mean that that sentence is not sourced – if I have a paragraph and its content is all from the same page of a book, then I’ll just put one reference at the bottom of that paragraph. Anyone who want to challenge the credibility of my sources, like Epicgenius, should make a list of all the sentences that they think are problematic, and I will show that they indeed came from a publication, either a book or magazine, or upon on the Internet.


 * To really understand how massive was the deletion that Candleabracadabra made, one need to first read the version before his deletion, and then compare it to the article after his massive deletion (links to versions are below):
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lap_dance&oldid=589347857
 * And this is how the article looked later in the same evening, when Candleabracadabra cut away half of the articles content and 3 Sections:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lap_dance&oldid=589383826


 * Notice that Candleabracadabra not only cut out the entire new History Section and its many sourced statements, he also deleted my sourced statements within the Legal Issues Section concerning a key prosecutorial decision, he completely deleted an entire new section called Scientific Studies with contained several research studies, and he even deleted the entire In Popular Culture Section which is about as sourced as a section can be. There is just too much axe-work here for Candleabracadabra to declare that he was not acting without prejudice, either towards a politically-charged topic or myself after a heated discussion on his talk page.


 * Guy 1890's above statement, "This may, in fact, be true but removing established sourced info, instead of not adding other sourced info to counter these types of claims, isn't the way to go...", hits the nail right on the head. If Candleabracadabra had a problem with the sources of any statements he should not have deleted 3 entire sections, but should have added his own sourced statements or used the Citation Needed command to schedule a valid deletion.


 * As a rationalization for his massive deletions within the article, Candleabracadabra reveals his peculiar opinion that our articles should have some kind of a length limit. He does this when he says on his talk page, "In fact, I think you've gone a bit overboard in your coverage of those subject in the article text." I hope that this is not Wikipedia’s policy. Any and all facts should be added to an article provided that they are relevant to a particular section or subsection. When a section becomes too large it should not be discarded, but given it's own article which is tethered to the original article with the Main Article command (ex: Main article: History of Lap Dancing). Would you approve if someone said to Ken Burns, "You've gone overboard in your coverage of the Civil War, so come on, let's get the story to Gettysburg already, which is what everyone really wants to see."


 * Anyone who has worked on a politically-charged articles or read within a politically-charged Internet forum, knows the type of bogus activities that an agenda-driven person will do to stifle and disable discussion. In this case Beyond My Ken (Candleabracadabra's friend, who also posts as BMK, Grouchy Realist, and has been reprimanded for running sock puppets [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&oldid=342793901 ) is just such a agenda-driven individual. It's revealed by his statement on the article's talk page: "In general Mr. Carroll, it appears that a lot of your concerns with this article is that it needs to paint lap dancing in the most positive light possible, which is pretty clearly POV pushing IMHO." To put this in a another context, suppose he said this about entries for a Football article: "In general Mr. Carroll, it appears that a lot of your concerns with this Football article is that it needs to paint Football in the most positive light possible." We expect our content-creators have enthusiasm and interest about a topic or we will only get half an effort. Again, the litmus test whether an article is unbiased or neutral, is that it accepts all sourced facts – not that it censors and evaluates each individual fact based on its immediate political posture. As for my own balance, recall that I also created the new Scientific Studies section which is very likely to receive many negative studies in the future, and I also entered some studies which were very critical of lap dancing.


 * Beyond My Ken has been obsessively watching and immediately reacting to this page for a number of years. He/she seems to have a hidden agenda, and the cryptic metaphor of that name also suggests a hidden motivation. Beyond My Ken has stagnated the growth of this article and discouraged any statements which are positive to lap dancing. That is why he/she insists on keeping a very non-representative and redundant photo of a naked man getting a lap dance, possibly for it's shock value. For the record, strip clubs do not let men take their clothes off in public areas, which is were most lap dancers occur. His obsession with the article and photo is demonstrated by the fact that it only took Beyond My Ken 4 minutes to respond to my deletion of that photo, before he reinserts the photo back into the article (see History on 31 December 2013, between the times of  21:37 and  21:41).


 * To excuse agenda-driven individuals when they sabotage or stagnate articles just because we might think the article is trivial, sets a very dangerous president. If we let this type of article-corruption to occur for 'trivial' articles, it will not be much longer before it grows and happens on more significant articles. We should be accepting all pertinent sourced facts for an article, and assume that with time we will find the right place for these sourced facts, either in that article or in another article. Given the huge storage possible of digital data and the navigation clarity that hyper-linking brings, Wikipedia should never be in the stingy position where they delete sourced facts, especially on the massive scale that Candleabracadabra has on 02:26, 6 January 2014, when he cut the article's total size in half with a single edit command, and created a type of virtual vandalism.


 * To let some individuals take an axe to an article with a single edit is not the way to make changes – we are supposed to do them incrementally. For the above reasons, we should restore the article the way it was on 21:48, 5 January 2014, and begin again in a incremental fashion to add more sourced statements, and to also challenge non-sourced statements with the Citation Needed command before a deletion is scheduled. And if the article gets too long, we can move a long section to its own new article which is tethered to the central article with the Main Article command. Guy 1890, could you please supply the URL links to the other discussions that you have noticed on this event?James Carroll (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * James Carroll, you seem to be ignoring the advice given to you by numerous editors, which is to calm down, to stop trying to WP:OWN the article, to stop concentrating on editors rather than edits and personalizing the dispute between yourself and other editors, and to be specific about your objections to Candleabracadabra's edits. Would you please drop the personal attacks and start going through the edits bit by bit to make your case.  That's really the only way this is going to work.  BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and James, you are totally dead wrong about my "hidden agenda". If the famous "anthropologist from Mars" were to drop by my apartment tomorrow and interview me on my attitudes towards lap dancing, and then categorize me into one of two bins, "pro-lap dancing" and "anti-lap dancing", he would overwhelmingly place me in the "pro" camp.  I have no animus toward lap dancing, I don't want to ban it, I have no problem with its existence, I don't think it's immoral - none of that jazz.  In fact, I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution as well, and if lap dancers want to break the rules (or the laws) and have physical interaction with their customers, it doesn't bother me in the least.  The idea that I have a "hidden agenda" here is, in fact, totally ludicrous, and you should please stop saying such a silly thing. It's simply that I do not edit the article in order to promote my views, but to keep it neutral and unbiased. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gee, JC, you just don't seem to want to focus on the content, and are now stepping up the personal attacks. As I told you above, my change of signature is just that, a change of signature, probably temporary, because that's the way I've been feeling. My user name hasn't changed (as I told you), and the new sig clearly refers to my username with "BMK", a nickname by which I am widely known. As for the other, yes, as explained here, linked on my user page as "My History", I did change my name in 2009 without announcing it or linking the two names together, and a guy who was running a whole drawer of sockpuppets got pissed at me and filed on SPI.  I was briefly blocked for sockpuppetry (for 26 minutes, 3 years ago), but after I explained the circumstances at AN/I, the community allowed me to continue editing under this name, and I have never edited under another username since. Now, all that has, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with anything.  The issue before us right now is that you made some very substantial changes to the article, and Candleabracadabra has reverted some of those. He's posted here to say that he's willing to talk about them, but you seem reluctant to do so with specificity, as opposed to making broad statements about "vandalism" and so on.  Could you please cut out the other stuff and get down to brass tacks.  Take a section, outline the problems you see in C.'s edits, and wait for his response, then give your reaction to that and so on.  Clarify things, find some common ground, work a little more slowly and less broadly and maybe we can move forward. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Aside: Actually, BMK, it was 4 years ago. It's 2014. You know, FYI. ;) ) -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -  Opposites Attract  ‖ 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

'''*I have posted a neutral pointer to this page on the talk page of WikiProject Sexuality. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC) '''
 * I managed to review the bulk of the recent changes made to this article here the other day. I personally plan to likely merge the menstrual cycle study info into the section above, add a few sentences that were deleted from a couple of sections (like small portions about the San Francisco proposed ban & the Canada section), add a few removed terms back to the "See also" section, and fix a few other (mostly grammatical) errors.
 * While I've never before made a connection between lap dancing & taxi dancing, I think I understand what the alleged connection might be, but most (if not all) of that info would more appropriately be located in the article about taxi dancing IMHO...if it's not there already. I also plan on eventually forking over some of the recently deleted content (again, if it's not already there) to articles about the Mitchell Brothers' operations & Kamala Harris. Whether it ends up staying there or not will not be up to me though.
 * As far as the disputed picture goes, I really hope that these versions of that same erotic demonstration put that issue to bed finally. The guy in the picture is obviously wearing shorts, and the picture has been photoshopped, just like the first picture in the article here has been.
 * As to the excessively long posts above, it's important to realize that Wikipedia's processes are not truly legal, or even fair sometimes. Wikipedia & its many forums are not actual courts with clear, established precedents that can easily be followed unfortunately. "we should also allow any statements that are sourced to enter an article"...that's not how Wikipedia operates either, since Wikipedia isn't setup to be a laundry list of all info that could conceivably be written about a specific topic. In fact, a lot (but not all) of the info that was recently deleted from this article was unsourced or poorly sourced. The standard to be met there is that any info that could likely be challenged as factual in the future needs to be sourced, period. "if I have a paragraph and its content is all from the same page of a book, then I’ll just put one reference at the bottom of that paragraph"...and you really can't do that & expect to get away with it, since, again, that's not how things work here on Wikipedia. Also, the "Citation Needed" tag isn't to be used "to schedule a valid deletion"...it's used to indicate that a phrase, sentence or section needs better sourcing, period.
 * IMHO, the "In Popular Culture Section" really didn't need to be there. It's a section that could likely become excessively long, since lap dancing has been featured in (especially American) culture & media in dozens (if not hundreds) of places. While there is no set length limit on Wikipedia articles, there are some suggested guidelines on that topic.
 * There really isn't any sockpuppetry going on on this talk page here Mr. Carroll, and you really need to drop that line of attack. Sockpuppetry accusations are serious charges here on Wikipedia. Again, while I understand that you are obviously new to editing articles here on Wikipedia, your tone & attitude during these discussions is not helpful at all. Whether you realize it or not, that needs to change if you are going to eventually become a valuable contributor here on Wikipedia.
 * "Guy 1890, could you please supply the URL links to the other discussions that you have noticed on this event?" I think that you are aware of all of them, since they all occurred on the talk pages of some of the individual editors that have commented here on this talk page. You were, I believe, a participant in all of those discussions, not that many of them occurred in a very helpful tone. Guy1890 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy, thought that we had agreed on the Scientific Studies section -- to keep it? It's a good place to add some objectivity to the topic. Don’t you still want to keep that section? If not, what are your reasons?
 * I don't see any harm in the In Popular Culture section, and I think that it adds some color and depth to the article. It's common to see In Popular Culture sections in many other articles, so why not here? If it gets too long we can trim it later, or move the statements elsewhere. But right now that section only had less than 10 entries and does not create a problem. It may not even grow very much, so why don't we wait till there is a problem, before we start deleting?James Carroll (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The infomation that used to be in the "Scientific Studies" section is still in the article, and it will also remain in the article after I complete my recently proposed edits above. I do completely agree with another editor that removed the "pro" & "anti" lap dancing sub-sections to that old section, since I was planning on removing them myself as well...while still keeping much of the text in those sections.
 * Is there "harm in the In Popular Culture section"? Not really, but it's pretty obvious from reading some of the comments that you posted to other editor's talk pages that one of the main reasons that you initiated that section (which others apparently decided to increase in size soon after) in the first place was to try to justify eventually removing the hatnote at the top of the article, which is completely unnecessary. Given that & the potential for an almost unlimited size to a section like that in this specific article here, I don't oppose the recent removal of that section either. Guy1890 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good that we both support restoring the Scientific Studies section, and I do not have a problem with leaving out Pro and Con sub-headers. As far as the Hatnote, I'm content to leave it there, as long if we can keep the In Popular Culture section. You mention size as your criteria for NOT restoring the In Popular Culture section. However in the Wiki guidelines for length, they suggest that: "At 50 kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for a rule of thumb [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SIZERULE#A_rule_of_thumb ]. At present we are at less than half that at 18,711 bytes, so we are far from having a size problem, and when and if we do, we can solve that later by moving a large section to new article, which is also reiterated in that Article Length topic above. That article als states: "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons." In Popular Culture sections are very, very common in Wikipedia and I do not see any reason why we should not follow this Wikipedia trend -- I think they are supported by Wikipedia because our readers enjoy the color and depth they can bring to an article. Let’s remember that you, me, and Beyond My Ken were all living with that section before Candleabracadabra did his axe job on the article – in fact Beyond My Key had done some editing and even added some items (Family Guy TV show) to that section. So unless you or someone else has a real reason why this is a problem, I am going to "be bold" and put it back. I just had all my work, research and half the article cut out by a single person in one edit command, and restoring the In Popular Culture is my current highest priority.James Carroll (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're not communicating well enuff Mr. Carroll, but a separate section entitled "Scientific Studies" is not going to be coming back into this article here. The information that was in that old, deleted section is still in the article here now, and it will stay there...pretty much as is IMHO.
 * "As far as the Hatnote, I'm content to leave it there, as long if we can keep the In Popular Culture section." Hatnotes are very common in Wikipedia articles, and there's nothing wrong at all with a Wikipedia article having a hatnote. One does not need an "In Popular Culture section" in order to have a hatnote in an article. I understand what the Wikipedia guidelines on article length say, and what I've stated very, very clearly is that this kind of section in this specific article has the potential to become very, very large, which is pretty obvious. "Let’s remember that you, me, and Beyond My Ken were all living with that section before Candleabracadabra did his axe job on the article" No, that's not true, since (as I've already stated very clearly) I just recently reviewed the massive amount of recent changes that were made to the lap dance article the other day. Let me attempt to be very clear here...IMO, this article does not absolutely need an In Popular Culture section, period. Guy1890 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Two Conflicting Sources for Date of Mitchell Strip Club's First Lapdance
The two conflicting dates for when strippers in Mitchell Brothers strip club first came off the stage to sit on customers laps, are 1977 and 1980. The 1980 date comes from a low budget publication called SF Weekly, which has merely reproduced much of an article from a personal website of David Steinberg's, called Lap Dancing in San Francisco and the Evolving Face of Sex Work in America 0r Why so many People Leave their Hearts, Minds, Inhibitions, Fears, Virginity and Heterosexuality in the City the Bay (links below)
 * http://www.menstuff.org/columns/steinberg/archive2.html
 * http://www.sfweekly.com/2004-09-08/news/lap-victory/3/

However the date of 1977 comes from David McCumber's book, X-Rated, which is extensively researched, over 500 pages long, and is printed and supported by a publisher. We can examine the pages in X-Rated by using Google Books, as follows. First surf to http://books.google.com/ Then in its Search Box paste the following (quotations marks too) : "the New York Live opened"
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=paB-UK7RH5EC&pg=PA80&dq=%22the+New+York+Live+opened%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o2nRUoS2EMnioASVroHABw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20New%20York%20Live%20opened%22&f=false

That brings us to David McCumber's book, page 80. There we can read that, "..when the New York Live opened... The audience watched raptly as the first dancer performed... and later came out into the audience and sat, quite naked, on customers' laps for tips." Then if we scroll back one page to page 79, we can read that New York Live opened in 1977. Obviously a long book which has been supported by a publisher is going to have much more reliable sources than a personal website. 1977 is the correct date that we should use, with its reference to McCumber's well researched book.James Carroll (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Lap dance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070325070325/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca:80/en/1999/1999rcs3-863/1999rcs3-863.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs3-863/1999rcs3-863.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013060541/http://iht.com:80/articles/ap/2006/11/13/america/NA_GEN_US_Seattle_Lap_Dances.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/13/america/NA_GEN_US_Seattle_Lap_Dances.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lap dance. 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/20090406021322/http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2004-09-08/news/feature.html to http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2004-09-08/news/feature.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion
There are two articles, Lap Dancing Association & Adult Entertainment Working Group, that don't really have enough content to justify their own page, not is it likely that the pages could expanded. As they are about lap dancing, it might be sensible to merge them into this page. John B123 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merger ✅ as no objections received. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Striptease Topless Lapdance.jpg