Talk:Audrey Hollander

Birth year

Re: Her birthday year: According to her entry at mySpace, she's 26 now. Ronabop 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Article mentions nothing about her being a stripper/exotic dancer at Trixie's Gold Room in Louisville, KY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.240.242 (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Divorce

Information about Hollander's divorce was re-added with this edit apparently because Hollander's ex-husband Bauer had requested that such information be added on his behalf per this edit sum . I don't think there's essentially anything wrong with adding such information as long as it can be verified by reliable third-party sources, but the only source being provided comes from an interview with Hollender herself which means it's a primary source and might mean it is not acceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also, the source is from an "adult entertainment" website which includes numerous ads and other types of information of a mature nature. Clicking on the page causes adult-theme popup ads or other material which might to be considered NSFW and which might possibly contain malware or other malicious scripts. So, I'm not sure if using such a website is acceptable regardless. I am not advocating censorship, but I am just not sure if such a site is acceptable simply because of all of the extraneous of stuff happening on that website that is unrelated to the actual interview with Hollander.

Finally, the version of the article (see here) before the divorce information was added the first time with this edit contains no mention of Hollander being married to Bauer at all. Even the current version of the article still makes no mention of Hollander and Bauer being married. Maybe this is something that should be added, but, as long as it isn't, there seems to be no need to add information about the ending of marriage that is not mentioned at all in the first place. I'm sure it's true that Hollander and Bauer were married and are now divorced; however, is that something that received significant coverage in reliable sources that can be verified and thus is worth mentioning in the article. On Wikipedia verifiability, not truth is what matters, and mentioning something simply because it is true, especially in biographies of living people, not considered to be a good enough rationale. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are marriages, and thus divorces, not generally part of a biography of a person? Don't sites such as those for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have ads? If we're to remove that source because the ads on it are NSFW, should we also not then remove all references with NSFW images? That would wipe out most of the sources for any article dealing with a pornographic subject. Maybe a perusal of WP:NOTCENSORED would be good for you, for it includes this sentence: However, some articles may include images, text or links that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Emphasis mine.

In short, I don't get your arguments at all. Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not advocating censorship at all. Maybe you were editing when I added that clarification. I was just expressing a concern about the popups and other pages that opened when I clicked on the link as possibly containing malicious scripts or malware. If you feel that is not an issue then that is fine with me. Also, I think it's perfectly fine to mention Hollander's divorce. I just seems strange to mention her divorce without mentioning her marriage. Also, I wasn't sure if the source given was acceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I was just asking questions; I wasn't making any demands at all. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the lack of any question marks led me to believe that there weren't any questions.

That said, I don't see the problem with using a primary source for something like a divorce. It would be one thing if she were claiming a 180 IQ but it's nothing so extraordinary. Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. In my mind, I was asking questions, but in retrospect I can see how I came off as being preachy. Anyway, sorry if my OP was confusing. Good as well for the primary source. Personally, I think the divorce mention would make a little more sense if there was also a mention of Hollander and Bauer being married (perhaps in a separate section titled "Personal life"?) since the only mention of Bauer prior to that is as Hollander's business partner, but if it's not needed than that's fine with me. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the interview never says who she was married to. Just that she became divorced. Therefore, I've removed Bauer's name. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)