Talk:Ashley Alexandra Dupré

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ashley Alexandra Dupré article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
A fact from Ashley Alexandra Dupré appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 March 2008.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] Article worthiness. Recommend deletion/merge

She is beginning to get more attention with a number of news articles focusing primarily on her [1]. I think at this point she merits her own article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC) This page should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlafreak3551 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

Oppose. Most famous, um, hooker in America, rivalling Lindsay, Paris, and Britney in Google searches---therefore now being offered contract to be the face of the new "No. 9" vodka being offered by Georgi, etc., AND her also meriting WP's mention, and this despite the third word of my statement. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I change my vote to merge, holding off on a separate article until subject revives the start of her musical career or otherwise decides to make herself a public figure, post scandal. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (keep) better known than quite a few subjects of wikibios and there's more to come since she's the star witness in the upcoming trial. Besides, I hear she has a "heart of gold". Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, Very notable; she contributed to the fall of an American Governor, she is easily verified, her music career has definitely gotten a boost. She is about as notable as Monica Lewinsky.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (keep). This is no "15 minutes of fame". In addition to her coverage in major newspapers and magazines (New York Times[2], Newsweek[3], Newsday[4],etc [5] she will soon be worth millions of dollars and through appearances in films, magazines and undoubtedly talk shows, etc.[6], -- KeepItClean (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think it should be deleted then take it to WP:AFD. This isn't the process. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I just listed it on AFD, so please feel free to chime in. I stay neutral on the issue of whether she is notable but I let those who believe she isn't make their cases to the general wikipedia population. Calwatch (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

From the BLP policy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

(emphasis mine)

This article should instead be merged with the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. It isn't necessary to know every biographical detail such as what business her father owned, what languages her tattoos are in, where she lived, etc. The only thing that is notable is her contact with Spitzer. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried that with an AFD and it was snowballed keep, and precedents were thrown in that thread. Please read that thread and see why there was a unanimous keep for this article. Calwatch (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing general notability. I'm arguing that she is only notable for one or two things and therefore an extensive personal history is not encyclopedic and does not preserve privacy IAW the BLP policy. This was not discussed in your AFD. If we want to keep this article everything except her interactions with Spitzer should be removed. I also think the remaining stub article should then be merged with the scandal article. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Her sudden success on Aimie Street is notable - reaching top price in the shortest time. She also seems to have propelled Aimie Street to a new level of popularity so it appears that her musical career is "notable" (if she has indeed earned over a million dollars from downloads this makes her more successful than most professional musicians in the US) and while this is certainly a result of the Spitzer scandal it's not particularly relevant to the Spitzer articles. It's quite likely she will become a C-level celebrity so there is a point in having the article but I agree it must have a neutral tone to it. However, removing everything from it but the Spitzer scandal actually is worse from a BLP perspective, I think, since that's the most negative aspect of her biography. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please nominate the articles for a merge and put appropriate tags on their pages so more of the WP community can weigh in.
Although we should check to make sure we haven't sensationalized her life tabloid style, I do think we can encyclopedically cover its outline in a manner deserving of her---genuine notoriety. Genuine? Yes, after all, subject even has her own detailed New York Times "biography-in-a-side-column-box."(See here!) (Of course that's maybe not saying much since some these days think the Times is a tabloid, I guess. lol (Seriously!)) --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are details from her early life, entirely unrelated to the scandal and her music, noteable? They may be in the future, but I feel they're just invasive right now, especially as she hasn't sanctioned any of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
When one (allegedly) commits a crime such as prostitution, and brings down the governor of New York in the process, there is really not an expectation of a high degree of privacy. Steve913 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
She is a person first and a prostitute second, and he brought himself down. She did not solicit him, and even if she did, he is responsible for his own mistakes.
I feel that the existence of this article is unethical because she has not yet willingly released many of these details to the public. --unsigned

when the 15 minutes is up this will be up for speedy deletion--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Others' attepts toward turning notoriety into notability, cf.:
. . . . . . . . Porn-star-who-ran-for-Governor-of-Nevada Melody Damayo
World's-most-famous-living-prostitute-and-a-Nevada-icon Jessi Winchester
--Justmeherenow (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, we nominated it for AFD, and it failed completely, and Spitzer is at least an order of magnitude more important than someone from the state of Nevada. I will assure you that any call for CSD will be met with sending it to the full AFD process instead. Calwatch (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, I dont think we have heard the last from her yet. Besides as of now I think she may still continue to pop up in the news as long as the after affect of the Spitzer "Saga" continues.

205.210.159.33 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turn-of-the-(20th)-C. scandalite/"Gibson girl"

Per Ecclesiastes, there's nothing new under the sun. MTV:

A former artist's model turned "Floradora Girl," Evelyn Nesbit (née Florence Nesbit) married Philadelphia society scion Harry K. Thaw in 1906. After dining at the famous Madison Square Garden roof a few months later, Thaw shot and killed Evelyn's reputed lover, famed architect Stanford White. Amazingly, this tragedy not only turned into the era's foremost cause célèbre but made a quasi-star of Nesbit, whose performance on the witness stand at her husband's trial was worthy of one of Broadway's better actresses. The case itself became the focal point of several films, at least one of which -- the Lubin company's The Unwritten Law (1907) -- still survives. Nesbit herself reportedly made her own screen debut in yet another depiction of the affair, the plainly titled The Great Thaw Trial (1909). [...] Sometime in the late 1910s, Nesbit made her final film, The Hidden Woman [...]. More than 30 years later, Nesbit's old studio, Fox, hired her as a "consultant" on The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing (1955), a highly fictionalized account of the Thaw affair featuring Joan Collins as Evelyn, Ray Milland as Stanford White, and Farley Granger as Harry. According to a friend, Nesbit was ill and nearly destitute at the time and in dire need of the salary. Years after her death, Evelyn Nesbit once again became the focal point of a fictive account of the Thaw affair, this time when author E. L. Doctorow incorporated the scandal into Ragtime, his sprawling indictment of the so-called "Gilded Age." Milos Forman's 1981 screen version featured Elizabeth McGovern as Evelyn, with author Norman Mailer as White and Robert Joy as Thaw. ~ Hans J. Wollstein, All Movie Guide

WP's article for the tragic artist's model/silver screen actress Virginia Rappe makes no mention of allegations she was from age 11 a sometime prostitute, despite being portrayed as such by Fatty Arbuckle's attorney. — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post and the Daily News as sources

Do either of these actually meet WP:RS? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice weighs in on the NY tabloids' reporting.
Oh, and on a more serious note---a more helpful comment would be to specify what assertion in this article sourced in a NY tab you doubt the reliability of. (Sourcing stuff is work. Sorry about that.) So, if we're seeking information about subject /x/ and we know that /x/ has been interviewed by /y/, this is a source for information about /x/ taking into account whatever the possible slant of whoever it is that is /y/. Thus, what "relying on the most reliable sources" means is to take everything as possibly slanted and to favor those with an earned reputation for accuracy, it does not mean to simply dismiss out of hand anything from any source prejudicially predetermined as unacceptable (as attractive an option as that may seem to the lazy). --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:RS and answer the question yourself.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I have and given the circumstances I think a wider discussion about their reliability for our purposes for this article is in order? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Please DO help us provide WP's encyclopedic coverage of this scorned-and-celebrated party girl through specifying which assertions of the article ought be thought controversial or doubtful. --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The VV report casts doubt on the Izler story so I've hidden the paragraph about it for now. I have no doubt that Izler said it, I just doubt that he was telling the truth:) Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
From here: "We knew that we had found a rock star escort when we met Ashley," Jason Itzler told CNN's Larry King Live late on Thursday.
"She was spectacular. In my opinion, she was the hottest, sexiest escort we ever had," Itzler said. "We were getting easily $2 000 an hour for her, with three, four, five-hour minimums." --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
At issue is not whether Itzler said these things but whether or not he's telling the truth or just trying to get some attention for himself. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I dig the context that Dupre's a living person who likely did not want it generally known (that is, other than to potential customers) that she was an escort----whether for Emperors Club or NY Confidential. (Yet the funny thing is it's unlikely for many of the clients of NY Confidential's 19-year-old brunette "Victoria" girl, who was said to have formerly served drinks to diners at the Gansevoort, to step forward and say "yea" or "nay" to identify whether or not Emperors Club VIP's "Kristen" really is indeed the same girl.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Daily News is IMHO just as much of a reliable source as the Boston Herald or Chicago Sun times is. Just because they publish in a tabloid format does not mean they are tabloid papers. The post has credibility issues but they are about on par with the television media. Calwatch (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the Voice writers' giving her impressions on the NY tabs' reporting. And I agree with her sense that Itzler's claim he just recently recognized "Kristen" as Dupre may well be disingenuous. (That is, the paroled-felon Itzler, who is required to never associate with anyone engaged in criminal activity---I don't know, such as, say, procuring? In a business famously insular and in relation to the owner of Emperors Club who has lived within walking distance from Itzler's familial home?) --Justmeherenow (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we add a line stating that the Village Voice has questioned Itzler's claim since Dupre was not one of the women arrested when his agency was shut down? Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One source says she worked with Dupre at the Viscaya club in 2004 while Itzler claims she was working at the Hotel Gansevoort in 2004. Are the two establishments connected at all? Of course, it's quite possible she worked at more than one bar at the same time (or consecutively in the same year) or that one of the sources is lying. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Itzler's current social introduction/dating service is DNA Diamonds. --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ad has but a generic busty brunette in it

It's patently obvious that the (nonetheless-primarily-sourced) web advertisement for escort "Kristen" does not in actuality have Miss Dupre in it (and this in part to probably help keep the real escorts' identities secret?) This from a description in the old New York Magazine piece about the workings of Emperors Club VIP's prototype high-cost call girl agency: namely, NY Confidential:

“If they ask for Nicolette, I take out the three-by-five card with NICOLETTE written on top. It lists the contacts of girls who kind of look like the fake Nicolette. What blows my mind is the stupid bastards spend hours searching the sites looking for their super-fantasy, are willing to shell out $700 an hour, and then when someone else knocks on the hotel-room door, they go, ‘Oh, whatever.’ They can still go back to Indianapolis, show the girl in the picture to their buddies, and say, ‘See her? Like, awesome, dude!’ ”

--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree... the fact is that GFE site is locked down so it is difficult to independently verify the context of who it is anyway. As an indicator of how the VIP club operates, it is notable for that, but should be on the Emperor's Club VIP page. Calwatch (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Would it violate copyright to add this image to the article. It is the most popular image of her, and its all over the internet particularly in use by news outlets.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. She never formally released the picture to the public; it was something they found on her MySpace and are blasting all over the place. She claimed that whoever is blasting the picture was doing so without her authorization. Calwatch (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK nom

I nominated the page for WP:DYK here...if anyone can improve the hook, or think of a better one, you're absolutely welcome to take a crack at it. I'll do some more work on expanding the article and cleaning up the references today. Nesodak (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since the "Sheen tryst" remains unconfirmed

independent of Itzler's at the least hyberbole(?), let's shorten it to a phrase. I dunno. "...whose claims link Dupre to the, um, reformed badboy actor ? (sorry.. getting carried away.. ) And add to it Sheen's publicist's once denial in pro-forma reaction to Itzler's cell-block payphone calls to the Post about, in part, a mystery-girl "dark-haired former Hotel Gansevoort hostess." Since the Times' line was busy. --Justmeherenow (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Sheen publicist's denial? Nesodak (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll include it - I'm working on that section right now. Nesodak (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I included that citation also. I'm not familiar with the reliability of those particular sources, but I'm sure additional cites will turn up in addition to them. Nesodak (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NY Post cover

Dupre's attorney has issued a press release challenging fair use of his client's photos...see discussion at WP:ANI here. Nesodak (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link dump

Just some links to some further sources, will cull later for useful info. Nesodak (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation

Is "party girl" an occupation? If not it shouldn't be listed as such in the infobox. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to professional party girl AND prostitute. Which is accurate...but I believe also more appropriate, ironically, than the purely legal and/or more formally "encyclopedic" term prostitute, alone, for a biography of a living person. (If you don't believe me, find out for yourself. Ask a hooker whether she'd rather be called a whore, in a friendly tone of voice, or a prostitute. :^) The difference is a professional party girl comes back from appointments loaded with cash from her entertaining, while a prostitute is a person sitting in a childhood family friend's living room squirming at being listed in the newspaper as being arrested as such.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: someone came along and didn't like the ambiguous (yet still quite accurately descriptive) non-official job title of professional party girl and deleted it, so I replaced it with call girl, it's euphemism-turned-synonym-for-prostitute equivalent. Cheers. --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "sex worker?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Dupre's age

She is actually 32 years old. --Topk (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, since all sources say she's 22 except for one outlier from an ID that's off by exactly ten years, let's make an elementary synthesis of the available information.
  • According to People magazine (click link), although Ashley Youmans was "set to graduate from [...Wall High School's] Class of '04, Ashley abruptly disappeared near the end of her sophomore year." (Ashely was set to graduate when she was----um, in her late twenties?)
  • Ashley's mother, Carolyn Capalbo, <Whoooo-hoo!...> lol (see picture), is 46. (Forty-six minus thirty-two is----um, fourteen?)
Surely Dupre (ne Youmans) would not have been the only at-one-time underaged model/party girl who could have benefitted from possessing a genuine ID that nonetheless fraudulently overstated her age by exactly ten years. -Justmeherenow (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statements sourced only to Jason Itzler

We are not going to include his statements, as they have not been verified by any other source, and the very sources reporting them have been questioning their veracity. This is a biography of a living person, and we are going to be sensitive as to what we include. Just because it's been published somewhere, doesn't mean we have to put it in a Wikipedia biography. Do not reinsert without discussing here on the talk page. FCYTravis (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a BLP issue (particularly in relation to the Charlie Sheen claim) and Itzler's claims are in doubt. Reggie Perrin (talk)
Itzler's ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 7-diamond quote (emphasis mine):

"Spitzer was the attorney general who took down seven or eight escort agencies, mine being one of them, mine maybe being one of the more well-known. After Spitzer took down these escort agencies, in a weird way, I'm watching the story, I'm thinking he's a hypocrite, it's kind of funny. And all of a sudden, you know, one of the main people that he took down, my girl is the girl that took him down, so, it's kind of like, that's my girl. It's a little crazy."

Anyway, below is the stuff Deleciónistaed all of a piece from the article. (And if we find it that controversial, after we discuss it we can remove it from the talk page.) Is there anything at all we should distill from this, prior further secondarily sourced verifications? --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Veronica and NY Confidential)
Jason Itzler, who ran a New York escort service called NY Confidential from 2003 to 2005, claimed to have recognized Dupré when photos of her were shown on CNN in the first days of the Spitzer scandal.[1] According to Itzler, they met while she was working as a cocktail waitress at the Hotel Gansevoort in 2004, and she began working for him on the side, using the alias Victoria.[2] Itzler also claimed that he had sent Dupré, accompanied by another prostitute, for an assignation with the actor Charlie Sheen — a claim denied by Sheen.[3] NY Confidential was shut down and Itzler sent to prison by Spitzer's New York State Attorney General's office in 2005.[2] Michael Clancy of The Village Voice, citing reports that Dupré was not arrested when Itzler's operations were shut down, noted that Itzler's claims as yet remained unverified and wondered if "the self-proclaimed 'King of All Pimps' [was] angling for another 15 minutes in the spotlight."[1]
References

  1. ^ a b Clancy, Michael. "Sex and the City: The Wild Life of Ashley Alexandra Dupre", Runnin' Scared, The Village Voice, 2008-03-14. Retrieved on 2008-03-16. 
  2. ^ a b Evans, Sean; McShane, Larry. "She came to N.Y. looking for record deal instead she got hooker ring offer", Daily News, 2008-03-14. Retrieved on 2008-03-16. 
  3. ^ Jailed pimp tattles on Sheen. PageSix.com (2006-05-09). Retrieved on 2008-03-16.
On the plus side the material is balanced, while on the negative side most of it isn't of that much importance, really, and somewhat unnecessarily tends toward the sensational.
Surely there must be some way to cut the whole thing down to a quick sentence absent any of its particlurs--one that would be placed in the aftermath of the tryst, where mention is made that, say, "Jason Itzler of the former escort agency NY Confidential went on a lot of talk shows making a claim that Ashley had once worked for him, which remains unsubstantiated,"? --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I like what you've done to distill it down to a brief mention in the "Media Coverage" section - I think it's appropriate and neutral, and doesn't run afoul of WP:BLP. I'm sure it will eventually be either confirmed or denied in the inevitable highly-paid interview she makes with the media. Nesodak (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corroborations by McLennan and by court papers

New York Magazine's 16 March piece references Natalie McLennan conversing with its author concerning her having gone to escort appointments in the company of Dupre. --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Court documents corroborate that Dupre work for NY Confidential and after its demise, for Velvet Traces a.k.a. Gateau Victoux. A confederate of Itzler's at Confidential was Dupre's b-friend, who then started Traces while Itzler was enjoying the 7-diamond cuisine on "the Rock" (Rikers). So I'm putting a NY Post citation into the appropriate place in the article and deleting our formerly necessary disclaimer. restoring deleted text to the "Earlier years" section that had been awaiting this corroboration. --Justmeherenow (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Abuse

I find this unsubstantiated allegation to be, at the least, irritating. This has been jumped on by those claiming that all those entering this field of endeavour have been abused. At the same time, it does a diservice to those "street" prostitutes who are (and have) been truely abused by the authorities, the johns, the pimps, the drug dealers and quite often by someone in their past.

At this level, chosing this career is more a statement "I don't want to do the work needed to get a real career and earn my place in society". Unfortunately, such unsubstantiated comments will tend to be misused for perhaps decades to come.

209.115.238.67 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

I restored the birthdate - it was apparently released by her attorney, according to both TMZ and the Post Chronicle.[(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212136957.shtml] I left a note at FCYTravis' talk page. Nesodak (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Does not matter. She is a minor public figure, and unless there is a good reason for republishing it here, we shouldn't. "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people." FCYTravis (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Caution, of course... but that doesn't mean that the birthdate ought to be removed under all circumstances. Btw, reading the section on her Musical career makes me doubtful whether she still can be considered a less notable person. I think there is enough evidence that currently she is at least a well-known living person, and will remain so, at least until nobody talks about this scandal anymore. I think that the inclusion of her birthdate is in full accordance with Wikipedia's rules. --Catgut (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree - also the fact that she herself has released the birthdate (through her attorney) argues against the fact that she wants it kept private. Has she contacted Wikipedia to have it removed? Nesodak (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have consensus to keep the birthdate. Calwatch (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it important to the article to have her birthdate? No context is lost by its removal, as it is an unimportant detail. FCYTravis (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course her age is relevant to the subject matter, especially since she may have been underage when she took the photos for GGW. I don't understand the reasoning behind removing the dob, its verifiable fact, and much more accurate than stating that it is unknown. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely...I can understand situations where you wouldn't want to publish someone's birthdate - BLP mentions identity theft as an issue, and I imagine there are cases where say, for instance, actresses can't get parts because people think they are too old. But that doesn't seem a concern here. On the contrary, it seems that she and/or her attorney are intentionally putting the birthdate out there, in an attempt to prevent the Girls Gone Wild people from taking additional profits from her image. I don't think the argument that she is a "public figure against her will" holds that much water given the fact that sources indicate her attorney is negotiating with media outlets for sales of her story and likeness rights. I've tried to discuss this with FCYTravis on his talk page but he just doesn't seem very forthcoming in regards to responding, so it seems we have consensus to add the birthdate back in. Obviously Ms. Dupre can complain to Wikipedia anytime she wants the birthdate removed, and I would not object to it in that case. Anyone here is welcome to add it back in...if nobody else does, I can do so when I do some more work on the article tomorrow, barring some overriding Wikipedia policy trumping the consensus here. Nesodak (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. There was enough time to present arguments against reinserting her birthdate, or to prove that Dupre was a less notable person whose birthdate had to be kept out of the article. On the contrary, it seems as if the publication of her birthdate has even been promoted by her representatives. I'd suggest that anyone who disagrees with this majority's view should first present his or her arguments sustaining his/her position, and then wait for the outcome of a respective discussion. As always, any edit war would be undesirable and counterproductive. --Catgut (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace/hometown

I notice that a lot of the original source material states that she grew up (at least during her teenage years) in Belmar, New Jersey, while our article says Wall, New Jersey (which redirects to Wall Township, where she went to high school.) Has anyone found clarification for this? Also the infobox says that she was born in Beachwood - do we have a source for that? Nesodak (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Girls gone Wild

Ashlee was initially offerred by Girls Gone Wild to appear nude in its magazine. [7] It was later found out that she has already appeared nude in it's videos. [8] Bigdaddy718 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've recast discussion of Miami Beach aught-five Spring break footageto this.

Image:Girls Gone Wild - Ashley Dupre.jpg Image of the 17-year-old Dupré featured in the soft-porn Girls Gone Wild video Spring Break 2005: Anything Goes (which footage is advertised on Dupré's website)

On March 19, 2008, the soft-porn website Girls Gone Wild featured video of Dupré shot in Miami Beach, Florida, when Dupré was 17.[1][2] and the footage soon thereafter came to be advertised on Ashley Dupré's self-titled website.[3] Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis said, "All nude images of Ms. Dupre were taken in public places and contain no sexual contact. In Florida, where Ms. Dupre was filmed, the law allows even women under the age of 18 to be filmed nude with their consent."[4]

--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the site in question is an "official" site - in fact, it reads like a spam-magnet Googled mashup of stuff found on the Internet about her. I have deleted all mention of it from this article, pending some verification that she is responsible for it. FCYTravis (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The ashleydupre.net site has been spam-blacklisted. Nesodak (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of this page

Here's a link to the number of views of this page since creation. Nesodak (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post Chronicle links

Despite its "newspapery" sounding name, "The Post Chronicle" is a self-published opinion/blog organ, not a reliable, edited, fact-checked, vetted news source. At the bottom of the front page, its management specifically disclaims any responsibility for the truthfulness or accuracy of anything it posts. This, to me, is the hallmark of a "source" that we cannot consider reliable, especially for the biography of a living person. FCYTravis (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on The Post Chronicle - TMZ.com is run by a major media corporation, however. I restored the TMZ ref. Not sure why the Hustler offer was deleted as well; it was supported by a second reference. Nesodak (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it have been more in the keeping with WP's mission to not wholly succumb to Delecionistaism within this fairly stable article (eg re Hustler Mag's 1 mill offer etc)? This could have been easily accomplished, after deleting all the various NY Post [Chronicle] citations, through merely placing "fact" tags on assertions the bonefides of which the consensus editors don't really question (and which would not have resulted in degrading rather than improving WP's encyclopedic coverage of its subject Dupre). Just sayin'.  :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - no offense, FCYTravis, but your lack of communication can be frustrating - I've tried to engage you on your talk page, with no response. This article is pretty closely monitored - would it be possible to state your concerns here on the talk page, and allow at least a few minutes for them to be addressed, before swooping in and deleting information that is not defamatory or harmful? If you're concerned about the reliability of sources, at least please allow a little time for the article authors to find some alternate sources for you. It's much easier than trying to reconstruct what has been deleted after several intervening edits on a high-traffic article. Nesodak (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
TMZ.com is a celebrity gossip site. We can, should and will demand better sources than that. There's plenty of CNN/NYTimes/Salon/Orlando Sentinel sourcing, which have reputations for quality journalism and restraint. I inadvertently removed a section when deleting links; thank you for catching that and restoring it. FCYTravis (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
lol. n/p. --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
TMZ.com is editorially vetted, however you may feel free to subsitute an alternate source. So far I have found the birthdate information reprinted in various major publications; however, they all quote TMZ as the original source. Nesodak (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The Post Chronicle is a major publication in the North East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.122.202 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that statement needs a {{Fact}} tag on it. Any site which specifically disclaims editorial responsibility for any and all of its content cannot possibly be described as a reliable source. Responsible news sources stand behind what they publish. I quote from the home page, The Post Chronicle accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. That's not acceptable. FCYTravis (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Smokefan2007 (talk) Well I called and spoke to the Post Chronicle and they are a private media company based in Northern New Jersey. The reson for their disclaimer is for the three categories in which they publish gossip and rumor. They also publish a ton (sorry no citation) of hard news. They seem to be similar to the New York Post/Page Six.
Well, that is essentially an admission that we shouldn't be citing it. If it's gossip and rumor, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia biography. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we are even debating this is an enigma. Techically, wikipedia isn't a reliable source since it can be edited by anyone. I find that to be ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefan2007 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't cite Wikipedia either. Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source. All information here must be verifiable from information published by reliable sources. That includes established newspapers and professional Web media outlets, academic journals, published books, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me understand this. The Post Chronicle, an established a reputable media outlet in the northestern US is disqualified as a "reliable" source because it runs a disclaimer and publishes rumor and gossip in three categories. What about the other 10 categories of hard news?

TMZ runs rumor and gossip, NY Post as Smokefan points out, run rumor and gossip. In fact, just about every major publication now does so.

Smoke you should contact TPC again and see if they appreciate the way their company is being represented here. Frankly it's borderline slander and detrimental to their overall business. If it was me, I'd sue WP's arse off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.122.202 (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well whoever you are, you have a good idea. I never really thought of it in that fashion. It is libelous now that I give it some thought. I'll give them a holler. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate unpaid and unqualified people discerning their viability. Since the history page is a publicly accessed page, the company's reputation can be, and was, impuned and maligned. Interesting. Smokefan2007 (talk)
Perhaps we should request a checkuser to find out if that IP is your sockpuppet. You have a history of editing articles to insert references to The Post Chronicle. I wonder if you are an employee of the company, or perhaps are Marc Centanni himself. This is certainly a matter that bears further investigation. There is nothing "libelous" about pointing out that a Web site's disclaimer of responsibility makes it unsuitable for use as a reliable source on Wikipedia. That's a statement of opinion, protected by the First Amendment. I suggest that you perhaps should review media law. You should also review our no legal threats policy, which states that users who make legal threats against the encyclopedia or its users will be indefinitely blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And yes, it is blatantly obvious that you and the IP are the same person. I've a mind to block you for sockpuppetry and legal threats immediately, unless you drop the act and start making a rational case for why PostChronicle.com's gossip should be considered a reliable source. FCYTravis (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sherlock, err...Travis, don't quit your day job. And take a course on how the internet works, mainly about IP numbers, sharing and spoofing. While I admit to residing in the state of NJ, I am in no way shape or form connected to this company. Wikipedia is pretty cool but it is also a haven for little "Eichman's" who have elevated senses of self worth. I visit that site every day, have talked with management and I'm offended on their behalf. There are a ton of people with no journalistic or editorial background making snap and arbitrary decisions about quite a few sites. This particular one sticks in my craw. This newspaper, which has quite a large circulation in north Jersey, has been cited on FOX News, CNN and in the U.K. for too numerous stories to recount. Why don't you present an argument that contains an example of how this company is "Un-reliable." Until it is proven to be "un-reliable" it should be given the benefit of the doubt. You should also be careful about your media law knowledge, because you are misinformed if you think you can publicly impune anyone or any company's crediblity. Wikipedia, because of it's footprint on the web, is held to a different standard. And I know internet law pal. You don't want the newspaper on the Dupre page, fine. But I would delete this thread and all other negative communication regarding the Post Chronicle if I were you. And that's all I have to say about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefan2007 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TMZ.com as a source

Given FCYTravis' edit-warring over TMZ.com as a ref, can we have some comments on its reliability? Here is the article in USA Today stating that content of that website is is "researched and vetted for accuracy". Nesodak (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to citing essentially any gossip publication as a source; but noting that we've cited it a zillion times elsewhere, there should probably be a broader debate on that, so I reverted myself for now. FCYTravis (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Travis. I left a note at WP:BLPN asking for further opinion on its reliability. I did some digging and agree with you on The Post Chronicle. Nesodak (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does Dupre continue to authorize sale of the GGW video?

I simply memorialize here that there was an "as-tasteful-as-possible-under-the-circumstances" screenshot (which is to say, the frontal view of Dupre-in-her-bikini, as she yanked on a pair of shorts used as a coverup) from a GGW spring break video was deleted in order for WP not to give too much weight to presumably embarrassing-to-her, youthful indiscretions. Yet I believe that should it become established she continues to authorize the video's sale, then our rationale in this regard would at that point no longer stand. --Justmeherenow (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would meet the rules for copyrighted content if used just to show what she looks like...I'm pretty sure we're already bending the rules with the Post cover (though I'll try to expand the article commentary on the coverage to make that case stronger). For example, see WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable use, #12 under "Images". What sort of use did you have in mind for a GGW screenshot? Nesodak (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It simply illustrates in pictorial form what is described in the text. It's similar to WP's editorial decision to accompany WP's referencing the brouhaha accompanying the surfacing in the UK tabloids of a photo of Prince Harry wearing an SS uniform to a costume party with the referenced-upon image being shown. While anti-inclusion arguments can be made that these "one-of" incidents in Harry's and Ashley's lives might be given undue weight through photos being included along with their being referenced in text, to say that the pictures themselves within their respective contexts don't add significant illustrative power is simply wrong. --Justmeherenow (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I can buy that....I guess a similar rationale can be used on the image to that which is used for Prince Harry photo. Nesodak (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitute aliases in the infobox

I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes by removing all the single-name call girl aliases from the infobox (though, on second thought, I will put "Kristen" back in after typing this note, because a lot of early press coverage referred to this). I think while it may be appropriate in the text of the article, it clutters the infobox without being helpful...nobody is going to refer to her by these names without also using her actual name. Even the "Kristen" thing faded away when her real name became known. Also I'm not sure if the "Amber Arpaio" name is really significant - it seems to have been a one-off thing. Thoughts? Nesodak (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No toes stepped upon here. Hey, when I listen carefully during the GGW tape, I think I hear a person yell something out pretty clearly to Amber---that is, seemingly Arpaio (uh, I mean Dupre. Geez! lol)--although this would be simultaneous to the Sentinel one-of, anyway.
Yet upon reflection I believe all of this is recentism that may well not reach the of-encyclopedic-importance threshhold, for sure. --Justmeherenow (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kristen should be in. I agree that there is no need for the others. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single WP:NONFREE image

The cover image from her "single", if you would even call it that, is not free to use on Wikipedia, and the fair use rationale for its use on this page is weak. The image is only being used for identification of the subject of the article, not the single, so I have removed it. ➪HiDrNick! 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were used for purpose of identification for the album, would it be allowed? I notice you also removed the album infobox. WP:NONFREE, under acceptable uses, says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." It seems to me there is critical commentary of the music album here (if there's not enough, we can probably add some more). Nesodak (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no critical commentary about the album cover, since it is just a picture of the artist, little critical commentary about the album cover itself is even possible. The image is solely used for identification of the subject of the article, which is inappropriate. ➪HiDrNick! 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please cite some guidance for the above? I've looked and looked and can't find any consensus that the album cover itself needs to be discussed in order to be included in an infobox about the album, for purposes of identification. I keep asking, but once again, could you please point to this? Please take a look at the thousands of articles on albums in Wikipedia for examples of this usage. Nesodak (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Each and every album cover on WP is non-free, so simply bandying about that lable is a nonsequitor, as is the argument that commentary in WP must be about album covers. See any WP music article and see if it's the album cover being given critical commentary. I see this line of argument as deletionism gone wild, pardon the punning. I suppose WP's being pretty stringent in its interpretation of free use actually tends to serve some higher purpose, but challenges to image's free use in general really belong on the image's talkpage.

Still to support the image's free use on WP

(1) tracing its source from the image's download, it comes from a graphic that is clearly labeled Unspoken Words' album cover on Amie Street's website.
(2) Since WP guidelines clearly state that commentary for an album can be done in a section and not only an entire article and since the image of the Unspoken Words album cover isn't at the top of the Dupre article but only in the section covering the album, it would seem to pass WP's free use muster.
(3) Challenges to image's free use in general are best discussed on the image's talkpage.
--Justmeherenow (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The image clearly fails WP:NONFREE#8, that is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." A picture of the artist does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the fact that she made a record. ➪HiDrNick! 19:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
See the template {{album cover}}, and the associated talk page. Your interpretation is by no means the accepted one. Let me do some more digging to try to find some consensus; in the meantime, please don't delete the infobox. Can you cite some consensus for your interpretation, or are you arguing from the position that album cover art should be deleted in every case where the cover art itself is not the subject of critical commentary? (This seems kind of extreme.) Nesodak (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, Dr. Nick, may all of us WP'dians enjoy our favored means of contributions. Your talkpage says, "I spend my time on-wiki removing fair-use galleries from articles." I hate to put a damper on such mad-fun, so, despite my belief that in the present circumstances your arguments are grasping at straws, since I myself uploaded the image and put it on the article and since this whole ta-doo (similar to an "ado") is pretty minor, I'm going to recuse myself here. Cheers. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I can see where DrNick is coming from...I think free content is pretty cool, myself, which is why I waste my time playing with Wikipedia. People who spend their time policing abuse of fair use are important to us! Unfortunately there is no free equivalent for album covers, so fair use is the only way to go...and since album covers are released explicitly for promotion, there's little risk under fair use so long as they are only used to identify the album. However, looking around, this seems to be abused by some people who put album covers in lists or in person infoboxes. So policing usage is great, but I think this usage is fine by WP policy. If the album is eventually split into its own article, usage of the image here would no longer be appropriate, IMHO. Nesodak (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name box

I've never seen anyone use the name "Nina Venetta" for her - it's the name of her MySpace page, that doesn't really mean anything. And "Spitzer girl," uh, no. FCYTravis (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nina was an earlier iteration of Ashley's stage name. Some Venetta aka Dupre songs were available online here for free but were removed after a cease and desist letter was received from their copyright owner. "Simon Illa is the producer, co-writer and owner of the PA and SR copyrights and master recordings known as 'What We Want,' 'All Night,' 'Move Your Body, and 'Cheatin' sung by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, a/k/a Nina Venetta. ..." — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks want to put "prostitute" into the name box and I see their point. Dupre put (at least at first) on her MySpace page, "I did it" and otherwise has in noways denied, whether herself or through a spokeperson, having been a hooker. Nonetheless I think it's better not to call this her profession currently since it remains a criminal misdemeanor in NY----and even if not, Emperors Club VIP is closed and we've no source asserting she continues to do sex work independly. (Or for another agency. Which would take cajones since----(Shocked, I tell you!)----she's outed as more than the hourly rate personal swimsuit model Emperors Club advertised.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height

As she was described by the Emperors Club as being 5'5", it's unlikely that she's 5'6". Most people exaggerate their height, or at least round up, so she's probably 5'5" at the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.128.35 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What should we believe? Emperors Club's vitals for their model-like companion Kristen (ya know----the one accompanying the pic with the pixelled out face of a model that apparently some Wikipedians' cousin's brother's friend sez it inn't her!) gave her various measurements as five-foot five, 34C 23 34 and 105 lbs, while AllModelZone gave Nina Venetta's as five-foot six, 34 23 33 and 118 lbs...with only an inch variation to height or breadth of hips raising no flags. But there is this outlier in that ExploreTalent lists model Ashley DiPietro as but five-foot three----with the rest of her statistics at this site left blank. My idle speculation is she's now slender (due her coke habit or else from working out in reaction to all the flattery of those six-and-seven-figure offers she hasn't responded to----or perhaps just in anticipation of her public turn on the witness stand) and, although she favors platforms, stands in bare feet five-foot three. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Then a polaroid of Dupre published on Page Six said to have been taken by Jason Itzler is inscribed (underline is mine): 36C, 26, 34 Victoria 5·2" 112 lbs Sweet, outgoing, intelligent. "Ashley" 19 yrs. BRown Hair Brown eyes
 — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
From the looks of it, we should believe admin User:FCYTravis. Who's source is actually more reliable is of little question - what it sounds like is that the article is going to read how Travis says it's going to read, because if you edit it in a way he doesn't like, he will block you. Apparently WP:BLP now covers details as insignificant as someone's height to the resolution of an inch. See dictator and the policy WP:DICK (an abbreviation for Wikipedia is a DICK-tatorship). Reswobslc (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has provided any reliable source for any other height than 5'-6", as used on her personal modeling site. Until that happens, it stays 5'-6". Every excuse under the sun has been given to avoid sourcing - "everyone knows it," "it's in the press," "women always exaggerate" - and excuses are not sources. FCYTravis (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd provide this New York Times article that took me 30 seconds to find with Google, but I guess the New York Times is not a reliable source, those gossip mongers. As far as I'm concerned, the issue at hand is not her actual height (if it's THAT questionable, I'd delete it outright) - rather, it's whether blocking someone for disagreeing with you to gain the upper hand in a petty content dispute falls under the definition of being a dick. I find that it does. See also WP:CIVIL. Reswobslc (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, see, now we can start having a rational conversation about this, because someone's supplied where this 5-foot-5 figure comes from.
The block came after I repeatedly warned the user to stop blindly reverting and discuss. WP:BLP provides all the policy backing I need to block a user for unsourced insertion into BLPs. I am amused by the idea that it is "dickish" or "uncivil" to block someone. FCYTravis (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, the person you blocked supplied his sources for the 5-foot-5 figure directly in the edit summaries of the edits you blocked him for making. That's ultimately how I knew what to search for. And he apparently did "discuss" as you insist, as he created this section, not you. Not that I expect you to actually care or anything. Per WP:DICK it is normal to be in disbelief - see the section WP:DICK#Coping with being labeled a dick. Reswobslc (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"The media" and "telephone conversations" are not sources. I made a quick Google search myself and was unable to find anything.
This is not discussing. That's four reverts in less than three hours, to a biography of a living person. Edit-warring unsourced material is prohibited. I warned the user and he continued to revert anyway. I note that the unblock request has been denied by a second, uninvolved admin. FCYTravis (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, whatever. You found nothing, I found sources in 30 seconds, which is probably less time than it took you to block the guy who was acting in good faith. What are you trying to prove to me? That blocking him wasn't being a dick? Reswobslc (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<unindent for clarity> Now the question is, which do we use? The figure reported to have been used by her escort agency in phone conversations, or the figure which is currently listed on a site maintained by Dupré herself? FCYTravis (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently another point of contention between yourself and the user you blocked is that the user you blocked contends that Dupré is not the maintainer of the site. And the site itself concurs in its FAQ: "95% of AllModelZone was built by Michael Foley with some assistance by people listed in the credits. Simon Hunt has been recently added to the staff and both of them directly run AllModelZone." So I'd pick the New York Times over a website by two guys (and if someone disagreed with me, I wouldn't take it upon myself to BLOCK them just to show them who's got bigger Wiki-pants!) Reswobslc (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
AllModelZone is tantamount to a MySpace for prospective models - that is, information is uploaded by persons holding accounts. It is known that this account is Dupre's - it's existed since 2004, long before the infamy happened. Therefore, the source for her height as posted on AllModelZone... is Dupré herself. FCYTravis (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"It is known"? By whom? You? Sounds like original research if you ask me, especially for someone chiming the WP:BLP horn so loudly... Reswobslc (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see people had a lengthy discussion about this in my absence. I'm tempted to change it back to 5'5", but I'll resist the temptation for now. It only takes an episode like this every now and then to remind me why I don't devote a lot of time to Wikipedia :-(. 86.137.230.44 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German

Now also on WP German. (I'm not a member of the English WP, so I should not post it up. Delabarquera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.129.144 (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Since she is already listed in Category:Sex scandal figures, I think it would be redundant and unnecessary to add further "scandal" categories to the page. Kelly hi! 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to categorize a person as a scandal. A scandal is an event which a person might be involved in. I endorse Travis' removal of the categories, though I disagree that it has anything to do with the person being alive. — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the categories should go. They are ridiculous. Also, if the music career should be moved back up. If her main source of notability is the incident, then this article should be deleted, because there is already an article that directly addresses the "event." --Jkp212 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Should we merge then (holding off on separate articles until or if subject revives the start of her musical career or otherwise makes herself a public figure, post-scandal)? — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. The merge question was addressed in the 2 AfDs for this article, and was rejected. That wasn't too long ago. Kelly hi! 03:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The AFD's were speedily ended, and no substantive discussion was had. However, I wouldn't endorse a merge. I think this subject is not notable for her music career, and therefore if the "event" is covered in a separate article, we should leave this subject alone. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

I've fully protected this article for a period of 14 days, or until disputes are resolved, due to the edit warring between multiple users regarding the inclusion, or removal of certain categories. I encourage you all to use this talk page and discuss the disputed item(s) and reach consensus on the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music career

The whole "Music career" section is not relevant nor noteworthy. It should be removed. She is only noteworthy as a prostitute, as such the article should only contain information relevant to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.146.86 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - the music career is part of who she is and, actually, the aimee street aspect is notable. While I agree we would not have an article on her without the sex scandal I think we have to still be fairminded and recognize that that isn't all she is. This is supposed to be a bio of Dupre, not an article limited to her career as a prostitute. As long as other aspects of her life, such as her music career (such as it is) are properly sourced and have been mentioned in reliable sources I see no reason not to include the information here. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

W:ikipedia is not about being 'fair minded' it's an encyclopedia. It's not realvent to any encyclopedia entry. 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Reggie Perrin, the info is encyclopedic and should stay. Kelly hi! 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If the Aimee street mention is relevant then that part should stay. The rest of it isn't relevant. She is not of any relevance out side being a prostitute in a major scandal. If that caused something else then mention that but a whole section on her music? Get real. In a years time no one is going to remember her for her music, and if I'm wrong? Then at that time her music becomes worthy for the article. 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the section on BIO you are ignoreing "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The music aspects were covered in several reliable sources and are relevant to her notability. I think the issues that concern you were covered in the AfDs for the article that took place earlier. Kelly hi! 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Giving encyclopedic coverage within a biography means to fill in some details that themselves aren't particularly notable (that Rousseau autobiographically admitted secret youthful acts of "exhibitionism"----within the right context, notable; that a random 18th c. Swiss youth named Jean-Jacques had been a flasher----not so much). Still, we've gotta decide whether Dupre herself merits encyclopedic coverage and, if not, this article should have only its relevant parts merged with the one for the Spitzer scandal, while if so, it should indeed retain its reasonable details about her yet wannabe career as a recording artist. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)