Talk:Karrine Steffans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

On Penises, etc.

• (Trim advert, we do not need booty-shaking or the penis quote either)

The following text was clipped out of a quote in the article, with the above Edit Summary explanation: "She quickly became a full time booty-shaking, breast-baring dancer— but success came at a price."

I don't see "penis" there, and I don't see an advert, or even what could possibly be advertised with that text. The statement that her success as a "video queen" came at a price is not only relevant to the description of Steffans as a hip-hop model, but is also a central premise of her memoir. Could you please explain your concern with that text more clearly? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is blatantly promotional chaff read out by Winfrey on her show. Because Winfrey regurgitates such rubbish does not make it encyclopaedic. "Booty-shaking" is not specific or meaningful for an encyclopaedic article. "Success came at a price" turns this article into a free advert for the author. Your repeated reversions are not covered by BRD, you have done precisely the opposite. BRD advises you to discuss after my reversion which you have failed to do. The same article includes the direct quotation from Steffans: "[He] pulled his penis out and asked me to perform oral sex on him," she says. "I had never seen him in my life; I had no idea who he was. He said, '[Perform oral sex on me] or you can't do this video.'", do you intend to include that? Why would you cherry pick promotion chaff over a direct quote from Steffans about her life? Considering in the same edit you have also arbitrarily and without consensus just removed The African American Literature Book Club as a perfectly reliable source that supports the details of the porn video under dispute and that I have already referred to in the RFC, your recent contribution to this article appears to introduce nothing but promotional bias to this article and is disruptive. Fæ (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The material has been in the article since at least last year. You have boldly removed it, and I have reverted your edit pending the resolution of this matter. WP:BRD instructs us to resolve this issue before you repeat your bold edit. Please do not start a petty edit war over this.

You have not explained how the text you keep deleting is promotional, and what it is promoting. What, exactly, is it 'freely' advertising? Also, I'm still not getting the "penis" reference you keep raising (no pun intended). I have no problem with using Steffans' actual quotes from that same source also, if that is what you are suggesting -- but you don't need to delete content to do so.

re: Issues regarding porn videos, etc., we already have an RFC and discussion going on in the above section. Are you not waiting for input on the issue you raised at the RS Noticeboard? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be keen to edit war and I have no intention of explaining why blatantly promotional text is promotional, your question appears trollish. I pointed out WP:DENY and at this point I think it is apparent that you have a problem with ownership of the article. Please consider how this appears if you continue to revert and the nature of your continued off-putting and trivial challenges to other potential contributors on this talk page. Fæ (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you have no intention of explaining how the single sentence you have deleted is in any way promotional. If it is so "blatant", as you say, then it should not be difficult to explain how it is promotional, and what it is promoting. Hopefully you will reconsider your refusal to discuss your edit; I have returned the content to the article in the mean time. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The explanation was given above, you perhaps overlooked it in your haste to revert for the third time and re-add this unnecessary promotion of Steffans. "Booty-shaking" is not specific or meaningful for an encyclopaedic article. "Success came at a price" turns this article into a free advert for the author. Fæ (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Advertising what? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The subject of this BLP and her salacious books. Fæ (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents - Presuming we are talking about this edit; I don't really see any "encyclopedic value" in the deleted material. I'm not sure I entirely agree with Fæ's WP:ADVERT argument, but it seems plausible at least; hence I'd agree with keeping the material out. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the removed material constitutes blatant self-promotion. It is taken verbatim from an Oprah Winfrey Show promotional anouncement/press release, which strongly qualifies it as a non-neutral source for commentary. The text itself is clearly glorifying the subject of that show and of this article (Ms Steffans).

An editor here argued that the removed material had been in place for a long time, as if this is a serious argument. But there are no "grandfather provisions" in Wikipedia. That silly logic actually actually runs against one of the most basic principle of Wikipedia editing, i.e. that "Anyone can edit most of the articles here" [emphasis in the original Wikipedia rule], without any qualifications about how long ago the previous text was put in an article.-The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the length of time something has been in the article is not an argument for keeping it -- I would certainly never assert such a silly thing, and never have. I do recall correcting a mistaken editor, however, that a certain long-standing bit of content was not just recently introduced to the article.

Like NickCT, I cannot bring myself to agree with Fæ's "Advert" claim (I won't call it an argument, because Fæ refuses to even explain how it is an advertisement). Unlike NickCT, I do see encyclopedic value in knowing more about the subject. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic wrote: "I do recall correcting a mistaken editor, however, that a certain long-standing bit of content was not just recently introduced to the article." Being familiar with your prose, I (think I) understand what you're trying to say with that sentence but, please, realize that it's as unclear as they come! (I.e. the reader who's late for this soap opera cannot tell, from that sentence alone, what was corrected; which side argued that the item was recently introduced; what is the correct status; et c.) Work on the gap.-The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased to work on the gaps in your understanding whenever possible, time permitting. I see you have correctly observed that a single stand-alone sentence does not convey information as clearly as the full text from which it was extracted. Well done! Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Since your kind of "work" involves tampering with other editors' text in an RfC talk page (!) or the unilateral removal of tags from the article in question, I have to decline your generous offer. Just try to understand that it is precisely the kind of attitude you've showed throughout this (long) RfC that widens the gaps (of communication). But perhaps you're comfortable in that habitat. Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a correction to the latest of your never-ending commentary about editors: I don't tamper with other editor's text (although I sometimes make allowable format changes for improved readability - just as you have); I don't unilaterally remove tags from articles (although I do remove tags that have been addressed and are no longer applicable). You do realize that your editing of other people's comments here is disallowed, don't you? Let me know if there is anything else with which I can help you. Comfortably yours, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured that when you engage in forbidden acts, such as unilaterally removing tags from articles, you will be called on it. If not by me, by someone else. And if this seems like ("never ending") "commentary about editors", i.e. yourself, perhaps you should be informed that Wikipedia editors are not above scrutiny and criticism. Perhaps you are trying to allege an ad hominem attack here. But, so far, thankfully, and despite the nature of your contributions to this RfC, the discussion has stayed away from petty personal attacks. Example of your contributions: You accuse me of engaging in something that is disallowed, when what I did is exactly what you yourself characterised as legitimate! What you alleged to be "editing other people's comments" (here) was indeed very minor, orthographical corrections to text, e.g. "who's" to "whose". That's allowable format change for improved readability. Quite disingenuous from your part to include in the same post an accusation and its refutation.

You changed other people's comments. The rule is, "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". Fixing indent space formatting for readability, however is specifically allowed. Your editing of Fæ's 'bullets' into 'indents', for instance, is fine. Tweaking people's comments, even just typos and spelling errors, is not. WP:TALK. Glad to have once again been able to help clear away some of your misconceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your attitude in this RfC and throughout the debate about this article has been in the same, unproductive and rather petty manner. You cannot even defend quite legitimate points, such as the need for Reliability, without resorting to pettiness and sarcasm. But this is to be expected when you refuse to assume Good Faith from any other editor, as you proclaim in your User Page.

Oh and if you find this honest characterisation of your work to be too much, I'm sorry but that's the way it is. Perhaps you think that "getting other people's goat", as another participant in this discussion put it, is an end in itself. And that there's comfort in it. After all, you proudly declare in your User Page that you are "often snarky". But constructive discussion can never, by definition, include sarcasm in its ingredients. Friendly advice: Re-consider your priorities, here. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the links you have provided in support of your personal attacks, and I see that you have lied. If you'd like to persue this matter further, there is a more appropriate venue where I'd be more than happy to discuss your issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Xenophrenic's statement Fæ refuses to even explain how it is an advertisement, after being badgered by Xenophrenic to explain the obvious, I have attempted to explain more than once above. Perhaps someone else would care to explain to Xenophrenic why cut & pasting quotes from the Oprah show without context or alternative sourcing for the promotional text such as "Success came at a price" might be a problem, particularly when the same quotations are extensively used in PR material (such as SkyNewsWire [1]). Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The "PR material" you cited is from Vivid, and is promoting their stuff, not Steffans'. It's a Vivid press release. The "quotes from the Oprah show" that you seem to have concerns about are direct quotes from Oprah (yes, in her voice, and transcribed as coming from her mouth ... not a promotion piece). I do agree with you that more context is desirable, but I was trying to get away from quoting that whole interview with Oprah, and am looking for other sources for similar information. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, please do not remove the POV tag on this article until the disputed promotional text is removed or corrected. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remove legitimate tags, so you have nothing to worry about. In order to assist other editors who may not be as familiar with the content you are disputing, could you specify that specific "disputed promotional text" content here? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This was explained at the beginning of this thread and has been since changed below by another user whose edits have not been reverted so far by yourself. Fæ (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic has repeatedly re-added the extended "booty-shaking" quote and since this matter was raised has inflamed the issue by extending it without explanation. The consensus here appears to be that this has no appreciable encyclopaedic value (and so fails WP:IINFO), adds undue weight to the article body and fails the accepted practice of Quotations. Apart from Xenophrenic, is anyone prepared to put a case to retain the full quotation?

• The quotation is -- "She quickly became a full time booty-shaking, breast-baring dancer— but success came at a price. [Steffans], who says she suffered sexual abuse in childhood and grew up with low self-esteem, admits to doing whatever it took to get the good gigs. In a misguided quest for riches, she says she allowed herself to be exploited and humiliated."

Fæ (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Editor "The Gnome" extended that quote, and IMO it was a needed and welcome edit. There is an additional quote from that Oprah interview that may add some needed context I'd like to add, if no one minds. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The section is called "Model", at the moment it contains nothing but a single sourced quote from Oprah. Quotes from the Oprah Show are not an encyclopaedic explanation of Steffans modelling career. Yes, I certainly do mind extending this promotional quote, it is chaff and has no value in this article. By the way, I asked for opinions other than yours, could you allow some space on this talk page for that to happen? You have already made your opinions clear, many times, primarily by reverting almost every improvement I have attempted to make to this article. Thanks Fæ (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The quotation is too long, and borders on being a copyright violation. It needs to be paraphrased. The header "model" is misleading, as the section does not discuss a modelling career, but an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show. I am going to edit the section. --Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

@Fæ - I have increased the space allocation accordingly, per your request.

@Diannaa - Good points. The Oprah content was originally added to provide content about Steffans' hip-hop model career. Contrary to what has been expressed by Fæ, her Oprah appearance was not to promote a book (her book had already been a bestseller for a year, and her next book was still a year away). Oprah was doing a specific themed show about the objectification and marginalization of women, and had several guests on to speak to that subject matter from their personal perspectives. There is still some good content from Oprah's conversation/interview, but the 'Model' section should be more about the specific dance modeling she's done, in what videos, etc. Your change of the "Model" header to something more relevant was long overdue. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I have done some other edits which I think are also improvements. Regards, --Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I made the edit in order to bring about a small semblance of encyclopaedic information to that section. Since Defenders of Ms Steffans Wikipedia Virtue forbid any and all mention of her sexual past in her BLP article, let's at least add what the folks from the Oprah Winfrey Show themselves said about Ms Steffans' sexual past. It was a desperate edit.

What we have here, besides a failure to communicate, is seriously deficient Wikipedia information: A hip hop video model writes books about her life in the hip hop world but mention in the Wiki article of her life in the hip hop world is not allowed!

This being the BLP of a former hip hop model and not of a person notable in the mainstream, reliable sources from the mainstream are that much harder to find. There can never be more reliable sources for this kind of material than what we can get from The New York Post, The New York Daily News, BNET, or TMZ!

Therefore, there are clearly three (3) ways forward:

1. Keep As Is, with minor alterations (like the one I did): There will be very little information for the enquiring user about Ms Steffans' life, except for her being a best-selling author of memoirs and self-help books, i.e. a mostly promotional article.

2. Amend per available sources: This would indeed fill out all missing information but those who dispute the reliability of these sources for a BLP would not accept trhem.

3. Delete for lack of notability: We take lack of mention in any and all "acceptable sources" to signify overall lack of notability.

My personal, descending order of preferences would be #3, #2, #1.-The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

#1 is the most likely outcome. That's a price we pay for basic decency. Do we really believe that this person needs this page for advertising purposes? There are hundreds of very similar articles, where relevant material is below the bar for inclusion. Icebergs, if you will. The answer is not to lower our overall standards. WIth respect to this article, I'm getting the sense from the material that has been presented that continued work on sourcing could build enough mass to get the "Superdeep" name shoe-horned in... but is it really that important? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

#2 would lead to a more balanced article, otherwise I propose that the NPOV tag stays to highlight the major discrepancy between what someone will see by Googling this author or watching a video versus Wikipedia's censored biography. The RFC has been running for 9 days with only a small handful of opinions expressed and the notice I raised on RSN received no comments from anyone new to this discussion either. I suggest the least contentious sources are gradually raised on RSN to see if fresh opinions can be gained and if necessary a second RFC could be raised with a more specific question, for example inclusion of a film appearance based on IMDB only (as pointed out previously, IMDB may be acceptable for film data rather than biographical data). Fæ (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1) That's not what neutral point of view means, "no discrepancy between Google and Wikipedia." That guideline says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." 2) With respect to this RfC and "freshness" I'm certainly fresh, and a number of the other editors whom have expressed similar views also appear to be "fresh." There is general agreement that the sources provided are not reliable. Even The Gnome, who appears to favour inclusion of the material, says the sources are not reliable. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not equate the two things or define NPOV as having to be identical to a Google search, you appear to be incorrectly quoting me. The words I used were "major discrepancy". Some significant points of view remain absent with regard to the author's notoriety, hence the NPOV tag. If you want to examine the context of that, then I suggest you take some time to listen to the radio interviews with her where the topic of Super Head was discussed. If we reject these direct interviews as sources then the article fails to address the context of her notoriety in the public eye. I believe you are misreading The Gnome's statement above, but I will leave that to him/her to clarify if they want to.

As for your "freshness", no, you followed my edits here from ANI where your declared intention was to give me "a good talking to". I do not consider that having an open mind or coming to this article or the RFC fresh. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd respond to that unwarranted slight on my character on your talk page, but I told myself I wasn't going back there.

• Yes, a user posted a request on the adminstrator's notice board regarding your conduct. I told that user that even from the text he'd provided, and without having looked at any diffs the most that he could expect out of that noticeboard was a finger waggle in your direction. Here is that edit.
• In the same capacity that any other user has, regardless of sysop rights, I followed up on that complaint. I found it to be largely warranted. You've not behaved particularly well on this page, and at least partly due to your actions this discussion has blown out massively. I stated as much here.
• As you had not (to my superficial reading of your edit history) ever behaved in quite this manner before, I extended you the benefit of the doubt. I clearly misread the your communication style, and posted an informally worded note to your talk page as a result of that misreading.
• You've continued, however, to be generally combative both there and here, and on several occasions appear to have purposefully read people's comments in the worst possible way. You take "I have been collecting offline quite a list of quips and barbs (to use polite terms) from your comments to and about me. Before dumping them on a noticeboard [...]" and make it into something "stalker-ish and rather threatening." And if your misquoting of my words on ANI wasn't purposeful, it was at the very least careless.

You're an administrator. This is a biography of a living person. This is a Foundation-level issue. You need to seriously take a step back, re-evaluate what you're doing here and the manner in which you're doing it. If Xeno is getting your goat because he's a "polite POV pusher" then you're handling it wrong. If he's a good-faith editor who's interested in this article, you're handling it wrong. You presupposed the request for comment, now please actually listen to the comments.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am having difficulty interpreting quoting you directly as a slight on your character. Never the less, I am happy to concede you are interpreting my implication that coming to this talk page after attempting to give me "a good talking to" may not be coming to the discussion with an open mind as problematic. As we are now in a situation where every word I write here will be repeatedly scrutinized for any possible negative connotations, I am happy to take the advice of stepping back and leave the issue of how to ensure appropriate weight is given to all points of view in this article to your judgement as an experienced administrator. I shall take the page off my watch-list rather than any further words here upset you further. Should you wish to raise anything specific for my attention then feel free to leave a neutral note on my talk page. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, I did not characterise the sources available, so far, on the subject's moniker and her porn-film work, as "not reliable". What I wrote is that, given the subject itself (i.e. a person whose whole career is based on her "intense" sexual past), "There can never be more reliable sources for this kind of material than what we can get from The New York Post, The New York Daily News, BNET, or TMZ!" (My "never" is possibly too pessimistic.) The point is that, if this is the best we'll have as available sources, we should seriously consider deleting the article because, without the relevant info, it becomes clearly a promotional article. Or, alternatively, shortening it significantly. See my proposal, below.-The Gnome (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If the article simply states her biographical facts (You know ... 'Infobox' stuff), then states only that she worked as a hip-hop model, acted in the Vin Diesel flick, and wrote 4 books ... what would prevent people who have formed some sort of personal animosity toward the living person from claiming it is still a promotional article? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And what would prevent people who have formed some sort of personal obsession toward hip hop models to claim the article is not reverential enough? The point I'm making is that Wikipedia is about following its clear, encyclopaedic rules and guidelines -- and NOT about "other people's feelings"! Wikipedia, tellingly, is not a prude and does not shy away from controversial subjects (most of which are rather more notable, and socially improtant, than BLPs such as Karrine Steffans'). The people who have formed that "personal animosity" against Ms Steffans, in any case, will most probably find other venues, as you correctly stated elsewhere, to vent their feelings (fanzines, blog sites, etc). Wikipedia cannot avoid being misused. The potential for misuse is always there. And cannot be used as an argument. Wikipedia's rules and guidelines should be the editors' sole criteria, if we're to stay as objective as possible.-The Gnome (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

It seems clear (to me at least) that this discussion is going nowhere. What do you think of mediation? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd participate (but frankly, I am not real optimistic). Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing smooth about the way the ongoing discussion is going but it is quite evidently moving. There is no stalemate - yet. I remain optimistic.-The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Married with children

The following content has been moved here for discussion:

Steffans married Darius McCrary in April, 2009, but in 2010 the former Family Matters' star filed for divorce. In December 2010, she applied for a restraining order in court against her former husband, claiming incidents of violent behavior towards her.

The above content is cited to the 'gossip' section of the NYPost, which in turn cites the gossip site TMZ.com as its source. Does anyone have better sources for this information? There are some serious charges against Darius, so higher quality sourcing would be required. None of this is mentioned at his BLP. I've also seen indication at unverified sources that Steffans & McCrary may not have ever been legally married, and only living as if married. I see in some interviews (Including The Today Show cited in our article) given when Steffans and McCrary were together that Steffans refers to her "two sons", including McCrary's son as her own. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:BlackShirtSit01.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:BlackShirtSit01.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Stub it

I'm hereby making the proposal, per Wikipedia guidelines, to reduce the article to the extent of a stub, with a minimal amount of biographical info, for the reasons given above. (In brief, we will probably not get better sources for a "complete" biography, given the nature of this BLP, than what we already have. Better significantly cut the text down to material supported by sources on which there is some consensus.) Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I understand we are looking at and discussing a bunch of questionable sources here for possible addition, but which sources, if any, presently cited in this BLP article are not in there by consensus? At a minimum, we have her 4 books and her publisher that can be cited for certain attributed statements; and we have straight non-tabloid reporting like the Washington Post article for citing statements of fact; and simple statistic sources like the NYTimes for the best-seller rankings information. What sources presently cited in the article should not be cited?

You raised a good point that there is limited coverage of Steffans in the big, mainstream reliable sources ... while there is much more coverage in the urban music industry publications and entertainment gossip pages, blogs and specialty websites. Unfortunately for Steffans, with her very first book, she pissed off all those very same people (the urban music big-wigs, and also the magazines, fanzines and reviewers and bloggers whos very livelihood depends on maintaining a good relationship with those big-wigs) by dishing the private goods on them publicly. That has resulted in quite a substantial amount of self-perpetuating disparagement, gossip and trash-talking in the less-than-High Quality sources we're currently reviewing. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is barely more than a stub as it is. I would recommend adding more from the Washington Post article. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit explanations

• Removed Verify Source tag — The Verify Source gave this reason: "The Philadelphia Inquirer vaguely refers to "more than 20" without explaining what they are or giving any way of confirming that at least 20 were multi-platinum selling musicians." I double-checked the source, and it (without a hint of vagueness) describes her as "...the rump-shaking dancer who appeared in more than 20 rap videos by multiplatinum-selling artists including R. Kelly, Jay-Z, and LL Cool J." I have verified that the text in our article does accurately convey the content from the cited source, so I have removed the tag requesting that verification. As for verifying exactly how many "more than 20" is, or exactly "how many platimum albums" we are talking about, that would be interesting additional information to have -- but not having it does not make the information we do have "vague". However, I did add a "many" qualifier temporarily. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Split one reference into two — I separated the Oprah Winfrey Show website link ref and the Show Transcript hardcopy ref into 2 different citations; they are actually separate sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Removed redundant template — There were two templates at the top of the page, both requesting that the article be written from a neutral point of view. I have removed one. I believe the second one can be removed as well, if there are no objections. There have been several rewrites since this article was so tagged; it would be helpful if any remaining NPOV issues were specifically outlined here so that they, too, can be addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

archiving

I've moved the existing talk to archive 2, I'll be moving fresh discussion in in a few seconds. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Talk:Karrine_Steffans/Archive_2#RfC_Superhead_nickname_and_porn_video_references

This remains in the archive, I think? There's just too much noise. If there are no objections, I'll try to make a neutral summary of the arguments presented, but since I'm involved I thought it a bit too bold to just do it without asking. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed sources

BLP-compliant reliable sources with usable content, not just a passing mention, about the "Superhead" nickname

• 1. Washington Post, Arts & Living Section : "A Bawdy Lifestyle, and How to Shake It" by Nia-Malika Henderson, 29 July 2005 (provides detailed background to subject's extensive sexual past; mentions that a "vulgar nickname" existed, without mentioning the moniker itself)
  2. Interview in Vibe printed magazine, July 2004 ("It started as a joke between her and a multiplatinum rapper...") [2]
  3. Steffans' book Confessions of a Video Vixen [3]
  4. Steffans' book The Vixen Diaries [4]

Reliable Sources with usable content about adult video footage

• 1. Oregon Public Broadcasting, 1 Oct 2010, "Tiger Woods and Other Celebrity Sex Tape Hits and Misses" [5]
  2. XBiz, publisher of business news and information about the adult entertainment industry, June 2011 (about Vivid's legal case to protect their interest in the porn DVD and others): "Vivid in Apparent Settlement Deal With CelebrityCash" [6]

Discussion on sources

I've copied this from the archive, but I've left much of the side conversation behind. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Just a small note, the headings are not mine, but are from the archive, IIRC. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources we've fully discussed can't be used (e.g., YouTube, IMDB) or aren't suitable for BLPs (e.g., 'Gossip' columns, Press Releases). Note that BLP restrictions apply to talk pages as well as article space. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman made the effort to collect and list all the sources proposed so far, in order to evaluate them ..and you took it upon yourself to unilaterally delete those you did not find worthy?! Unbelievable. Instead of stating your opinion, you chose to impose your take on everybody - before the discussion even started. Like I said, unbelievable.

Also, please cease the constant invocation of unrelated Wiki policies because such behavior is awfully close to Wiki bullying. FYI, the BLP restrictions on Talk pages do not apply to the simple mention of proposed sources, without quoting anything from them. Source XYZ might eventually be judged to be unreliable but this does not mean that the reliability of XYZ cannot be discussed! And that the mere mention of XYZ must be erased! The whole Wiki project is based on dialogue. Not what you seem to be doing, I'm sorry to say.-The Gnome (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The removal of previously discussed (see archive) unreliable and banned sources had nothing to with what I "find worthy". I've not yet invoked an "unrelated Wiki policy". Xenophrenic (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's not about "worthy," but about meeting the existing guidelines. The real problem is that some of the sources that use the name are reliable. The question of how widely the name is used is up to editorial discretion, I think. Arguments on why the use of the name is important enough to be included would be appreciated. Just as a throw-away idea, what's the percentage of stories about the article's subject that use the name? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a throw-away answer, there are 1100% more references to the article's subject without the nickname than with it. I find that the vast majority of the "sources" merely stick the nickname in quotes between her first and last names (or they will briefly say "also known as..."), as if it appeared that way on her birth certificate, but then they say nothing more about the moniker after throwing it out there. The remainder of the sources might add, with a wink and a nod, a vague half-sentence reference to "skills that earned her the nickname" or some such, without conveying anything more about it. It is definitely included as a pejorative in any screed or gossip content about the article subject. The only content that I've seen so far that might be an acceptable source, AND attempts to give at least some context to the nickname, is the 2004 Vibe interview linked above (note: not the 2007 context-less Vibe Vixen column). Even Steffans' 4 books combined gloss over it with a mere couple sentences total. I agree with you that the more significant consideration here is "why" should it be included in the BLP. (Recalling the cute or raunchy pet-names I've used, or been called by, I don't think I'd want them appearing in a biography about me; nor do I believe readers of my biography would have a particular interest in reading about them.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we call that consensus, than? That barring additional evidence being presented, the nickname is not included? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We can call what we have here anything we want! But what we do have, at least the way I see it, is a clear case of ownership of this article by one Wikipedia editor. The discussion of the other issues raised about this particular entry, as well as past discussions (now, thankfully, archived), indicate that, without the agreement of at least editor Xenophrenic, nothing of substance can be added nor anything laudatory can be removed from the Karrine Steffans story.

For example, you've listed up (a gracious effort to bring the dispute into focus) all the links that had been suggested for this BLP. Yet, Xenophrenic took it upon himself to unilaterally remove items from the list before anyone had the chance to even talk about their reliability! This kind of attitude, perhaps, is what passes for dialogue and "consensus" around here. So, what exactly do you want me to say and contribute now?!

Here's how this should have worked : We put up a list of links suggested; we talk about them; we throw away the unacceptable ones; and then, with a clear and objective mind, we discuss on the basis of the reliable sources (otherwise, we're doing OR), what we put and what we do not put into the article. What we have instead is the totally anti-scientific process of first deciding what the truth is and then selecting the evidence that confirms our truth. Nice work we're doing, here, folks; we can be proud.-The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

About the only thing with which I agree in the immediately preceding paragraphs is: "What we have instead is the totally anti-scientific process of first deciding what the truth is and then selecting the evidence that confirms our truth." We have decided that we must, in any way possible, somehow mention nicknames and some adult film footage in the article, and we are now scrambling to find evidence (sources) to support our predetermined truth. Here's how this should have worked: We come across specific content of significant interest that is encyclopedically covered in high quality reliable sources, then we convey that content in our article and cite those sources. Instead, we have "Hey, I heard she was called this (insert Beavis and Butt-head laugh here) — so let's find a source that squeaks past the BLP requirements so that we can put it in the article!" Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do editors have to explain and excuse themselves to you? I have no preconceived ideas about what should or should not be in this particular BLP (or any other)! I happen to find ridiculous the efforts of some editors, including you, to keep out of this particular BLP information about the most important element of Ms Steffans' life, so far, the one upon which she has built her entire best-selling authorship of memoirs and guides, i.e. her sex life. (The "nickname" is a mere specimen in that couscous and possibly not that crucial.) Yet, of course, if the relevant information cannot be substantiated through reliable third-party sources, I have no inclination (nor an "agenda", as was repeatedly hinted) to see that information in there. Clear?

What you are doing, on the other hand, is pre-empting any and all efforts to discuss this somberly and with objectivity. How can one possibly justify what you did? You alone decided what is worth discussing and what is not! You took off from the list Aaron Brenneman put together all the items that you believe were "off limits". That is going against dialogue; that's bias. What you accuse others of engaging in, you are engaging in youself.

As to how "this should have worked", your "guide" is a good start but you're missing an important point, one that's indicative of what is wrong with your approach: There are no media outlets that cover stuff "encyclopaedically" - except encyclopaedias! The historian, the encyclopaedist, the chronicler, look for what they need in sources and use it, if necessary, depending on the source's reliability. (Wikipedia's rules are not something new under the sun!) If there is a funny take on the N. Y. Times about, for example, some mishap that occured during a meeting between Bush and Blair, the information can be used (if it's notable and relevant) even though the fact that is not presented "encyclopaedically" in the source.-The Gnome (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Skipping past your comments and personal opinions about editors, I'll repeat what I stated above: The removal of previously discussed (see archive) unreliable and banned sources had nothing to with what I "find worthy", or as you now rephrase, what I "believe were off limits". I hope that is clear now. You also seem to be struggling with my phrase, "encyclopedically covered", where I intended to convey that the subject matter should be "reported on", or "discussed in some depth", or "reasonably explained", rather than simply mentioned in passing without context or further definition. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The comments are not "personal"; they critique the kind of (truly lousy, IMO) work you offer on this matter. But you are free, of course, to take personally criticism directed at your contributions. (Perhaps you should try and restrain yourself a bit longer?)

Aaron Brenneman put up a list that contained all the various sources that has been proposed. You are saying he was wrong to draw up that list? (Notice that if he was, there would have been nothing to discuss.)-The Gnome (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Model" or "Hip hop dancer" ?

Karrine Steffans has never worked as a model. Model is defined in Wikipedia as "a person who is employed for the purpose of displaying and promoting fashion clothing or other products and for advertising or promotional purposes or who poses for works of art". The definition in Wikipedia goes on to include in modelling work "fashion, glamour, fitness, bikini, fine art, and body-part models". None of these describes Steffans' work in music videos.

It should be noted, though, that Wikipedia also states that "the models themselves can be a featured part of a movie (Looker, Tattoo), reality television show (America's Next Top Model, The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency), or music video ("Freedom! '90", "Wicked Game", "Daughters")." Note, however, that in each and every example provided in this definition, the reference is made exclusively to persons who are already models (already fit the above definitions) when they make an appearance in a music video. Such are the cases for model Helena Christensen in the music video for "Wicked Games"; model Gemma Ward in the music video for "Daughters"; and models Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Christy Turlington, Tatjana Patitz, and Cindy Crawford in "Freedom! '90".

I suggest that we use the term Hip hop dancer, instead, which fully and accurately denotes Steffans' work as a dancer in hip hop music videos.-The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think hip hop model is the best description, especially since Steffans is cited as a well-known example. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would personally have no problem with "hip hop model", since it eliminates, at least, the vagueness of the bare term "model".-The Gnome (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We presently use the "Hip hop model" description, in both the lead and body of the article, because it is that for which she is well-known. She has, however, done other modeling, such as her swimsuit photo shoot for Smooth Magazine and exclusive photo layout for King Magazine. That's why I used the more generic and inclusive "Model" header in our article. (I assume the above comment was in regard to the header, and not the general references.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the article already used the phrase (and linked to the article) hip hop model. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The work of a hip hop model is different from the work of a model. The use of the word "model" in both descriptions is irrelevant, if confusing. As the relevant Wikipedia articles make clear, the hip hop models are not some "part" of the modeling world and, therefore, the ("generic") use of the term "Model" cannot be "inclusive". It would be, in fact, misleading. But, if Steffans has done actual, notable modelling work, we can include that work in a separate section titled "Model", while having her work as a Hip hop model in a section titled "Formula-1 Driver". Or maybe (just an idea) "Hip hop model".-The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the relevant articles make clear that hip hop models are not related, or not a subset of the broader model category. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your disagreement is based on what exactly? The Wikipedia articles make it quite clear that the work of dancing in hip hop music videos is nor related to nor part of the broader model category. There is no claim of "hip hop models" being a subset of "models" in the Wiki entry for "models". And in the Wiki entry for "hip hop models" there is no claim that "hip hop models" belong in the broader model category. In fact, there is no mention of "hip hop models" at all in the entry for "models"! So, this is not "my personal opinion"; it is how Wikipedia (clearly) has it. Your argument to the contrary seems quite baseless.-The Gnome (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one or both of those Wikipedia articles are deficient in that respect? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My disagreement is based on the fact that "Hip Hop Model" has "Model" right in the name. It is based on the lead sentence of that article which states, "Hip hop models (or hip hop honeys) are female models who appear in...". You refer above to "the work of dancing in hip hop music videos", while I'm referring more to the work of the models in those same videos who simply lounge beside a swimming pool, or on the deck of a yacht, or hang on the arm of the singer — basically eye-candy; and while there may be swaying and grinding, they don't really do choreographed dancing, because they aren't professional dancers (unlike those found in Michael Jackson or Pat Benatar videos). They are just models. And they are most commonly referred to as such in print ([7], [8]). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the first link you provided refers to actual models appearing in music videos (notably, hip hop videos are not mentioned in that article at all). The context is those models' hyper-thinness and the danger of promoting anorexia. Your second link is far more demeaning to girls working in hip hop videos, labeling them, in fact as mostly groupies. We're far from true modelling work. Karrine Steffans' work in the hip hop videos in which she has appeared was quite unlike the simple "eye candy" of models making a pass across the screen. It was exactly as the Oprah Winfrey show transcript described it (she was a "full-time booty shaking, breast-baring dancer"). Note that, in that show, Ms Steffans herself calls her work in those videos as being a "music video dancer", which is quite accurate.

Incidentally, I find the argument about the usage of the term "model" in both fields of work (bona fide modelling and hip hop 'modelling') to be insufficient. For example, it is common to denote porn performers as "porn actors". But would we list in Wikipedia a porn star's porn work in a section titled "Acting"? We wouldn't. Notice, for instance, Traci Lord's Wikipedia entry, where her porn work is listed separately, in "Porn Career", from her work in legitimate, non-porn cinema, which is listed in a section titled "Acting". -The Gnome (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first source does refer to actual models — music video models — appearing in music videos, and that was my point. That source does not mention other types of models (i.e., runway, fashion, spokesmodel, etc.) as being in the music videos - and the study even includes band members in all-female groups where they are attractive, thin body types. The modelling work in music videos, by the way, is bona fide, and major model consulting firms even have it as a category. As to Steffans' work in videos specifically, I never said she didn't "dance" in some of them — I was commenting on the nature of the general work of music video models, which is in the role of "eye-candy" rather than choreographed dancers. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Steffans' work on music videos has been exclusively the work of a "full-time booty shaking, breast-baring dancer" like the majority of the work of hip hop video female performers; she did not just "dance in some of them", she danced (and booty-shaked, etc) in all of the videos she appeared in! Do we want to be accurate? Or will we casually lump together unrelated lines of work? Steffans has worked as a hip hop model/dancer; her one or two stints as a "bona-fide model" could be, of course, mentioned (accompanied by the relevant links) but that work does not qualify her as a model. (Note that Steffans' "bona fide modelling" work is mentioned nowhere in the article as it currently stands.) As you mentioned, she is (correctly) denoted as a "former hip hop model" and not as a model in the entry's introduction. She's a hip hop model in the introduction but (only) a model in the section title?

You have not addressed the important issue of dual work, for which I used the example of porn performers: If Karrine Steffans' work in music videos can be labelled "Modelling", then the work of Traci Lords in her porn career should be grouped together with her non-porn work under "Acting". The truth is that Steffans has done (some) work as a bona fide model; and she has mainly worked as a hip hop model/dancer.

Re "[M]odelling work in music videos ... is bona fide, and major model consulting firms even have it as a category." Well, tellingly, Steffans was not even employed by any model agency when she was appearing in those hip hop videos. She was not some "bona fide" model doing side work in music videos; her work in hip hop music videos was practically all she did! She was being employed strictly to full-time "shake her booty, bare her breasts and dance" in music videos, as Oprah Winfrey's show put it; not to make an appearance as a Linda Evangelista or a Christy Turlington.-The Gnome (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"she danced (and booty-shaked, etc) in all of the videos she appeared in!"

No, she didn't (Front 2 Back comes to mind), not that it matters. Bona fide catwalk models strut; bona fide nude models bare breasts; bona fide athletic equipment models flex; bona fide hip hop models shake booty. And while they are "unrelated lines of work", as you say, they are all modelling.

You have not addressed the important issue of dual work, for which I used the example of porn performers

You mean Pornographic actors? I'm not sure what you are asking to be addressed.

She was not some "bona fide" model doing side work in music videos

She was a bona fide hip hop model doing work in music videos; are you saying she needs some sort of certification or registration? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

For someone who "doesn't follow her activities" you sure know a lot of her work! As to the Front 2 Back video clip itself, this is the video clip where Ms Steffans got "promoted" from the baring, shaking grind in the background to have a total of two close-up shots. This, after moments 01:12, 01:18, 01:58, 02:10, 02:14, 02:20, 02:27 where hip hop girls shake and bare, etc. But, I guess, they are all doing "modelling work!" I suppose a mother can send, with the same clear conscience, her teenage daughter to either do "modelling work" on Xzibit's music videos or take her to model for Karl Lagerfeld's spring collection. Next up, "modelling work" for BangBros?-The Gnome (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "bona fides"

Steffans was a bona fide hip hop model doing work in music videos. This does not a model make the way Wikipedia, at least, defines it in the entry for either models or hip hop models. When this was pointed out to you, you suggested the Wikipedia entries may be deficient! But, even accepting that the two lines of work are as related as you claim: When it is possible, practical and more informative to distinguish between two, posssibly related (per your claim), but certainly distinguishable lines of work, what can possibly be your reason to have them lumped together? Considerations of space and bandwidth?..

As to the example about porn actors doing legitimate cinema work, I'm sure you can see the point: Traci Lords has done both porn acting (some would place the latter word inside quotation marks) and non-porn acting. The two are listed in Wikipedia under two separate sections, although they could have been lumped together under "Acting". Do not you see the relevance ?-The Gnome (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Plus-size model and Model (person) are listed in two separate sections, although they could have been lumped together under "Models". I see that Hip hop model says that they are Models. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What you see are two articles that could indeed be merged into one, since Plus-size models are simply fat(ter) models. The distinction is not on what they're doing but on how they weigh. But what genuine models do and what a hip hop model does is dissimilar enough to merit two separate entries in Wikipedia. Which are not, despite what you suggest, "deficient"!

Now, please address the issue of separately listing separate work. Why shouldn't we do this? To save bandwidth? Even if we could (let's say, for agument's sake) that we could lump together everything under "Model", why not list separately the two "types" of modelling Steffans did? What can you see there. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Her model work in magazines and her model work in music videos are listed separately (notice the paragraph breaks) under the model heading in the article. I understand that you believe that her hip hop modelling work is not a form of modelling, but I (and the Hip hop model article, and academic publications on the genre that refer to the "models" in such videos) disagree. Perhaps we should address the issue first in the Model (person) and Hip hop model articles first. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(There are academic texts on hip hop models doing "modelling work"?) Fine, let's have the two kinds of "modelling work" Steffans did in separate paragraphs. Now, the original question, once again: What is the reason for not having those "separate paragraphs" under separate headings?-The Gnome (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Steffans in college speaking tours

The article currently states "Steffans visits college campuses on speaking engagements to speak to young women about the dangers of the entertainment industry". However, no substantiation is provided for this. (I "citation needed"-tagged that statement but the tag was removed, without explanation.) We need links, preferably to college sources, verifying Steffans' college tour engagements. Also, we need to have verification that the speaking tours are/have been happening on a regular basis. Otherwise, the accurate description would be "Steffans has visited college campuses [etc]".-The Gnome (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence you have quoted is a lead-paragraph summary of content located elsewhere in the article. As for "on a regular basis", I don't follow her activities so I can't comment on recentness or frequency, but I haven't seen a reliable source saying she has ceased. I know she has done campus lecturing in 2005 through 2008 just from some sources I've read (one example), as well as related panel-type discussions on Oprah (already mentioned in article), NPR, VH1-News and the like. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the necessary sources for the claim that Steffans speaks regularly at colleges. Good work. They will be inserted in the text. Until now, the two sources cited in the main body of the text were a Washington Post article that mentions nothing about speaking in colleges and the (Dominguez Hills) newsletter, which does. Incidentally, that lead-paragraph sentence is practically lifted verbatim from the newsletter's 2nd paragraph: "Steffans visits colleges to speak to young women about the little-known dangers of the entertainment industry." Since Wikipedia somewhat frowns upon such "perfect" copying, that sentence needs a little change, while the relevant section in the main body needs expansion. We should quote in more detail the content of her talks, for example. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The necessary sources for the fact that Steffans speaks at colleges already exist in the body of the article where that content is, as I've pointed out to you. I believe the Washington Post article was cited in support of her speaking engagements for this relevant text:

"Karrine's story is really hitting people on the street," Davis said. "Coming from her it's a real turning of the tide on how women have been treated inside hip-hop." Davis said she hoped Steffans would go into communities and speak about her experiences. According to her publicist, Gilda Squire, that's the plan. In October, Steffans will be at the Howard University bookstore during homecoming. Monique Mozee, the bookstore's marketing manager, also said it put the conversation about misogyny in hip-hop in a different light.

You are welcome to add additional sources if you'd like, and additional content is always welcome. I don't see any "perfect copying", just two different sentences that say almost the same thing - I'm sure alternative choices of wording exist to convey the same meaning. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about source

Steffans has apparently done some "modelling work" for Smooth magazine, posing for photos in one of its "bikini issues". There exists a link to the magazine's website which presents that issue's contents. The Smooth photo shoot is also mentioned in Ms Steffans' memoirs. A Wiki editor objects to using both the direct source (the link to the magazine's website) and the indirect source (the subject's memoirs) for the photos in Smooth. I, on the other hand, prefer to have, if possible, additional information to what is provided by the subjects of biographies, per Wikipedia's specific rules. Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor objects to using an online link to "Smooth Girl" as a source about content that is actually in "Smooth (magazine)". Your edit summary, "pls do not remove *direct* sources and leave up only indirect ones (that, moreover, come from the subject of the BLP herself)", incorrectly describes "Smooth Girls" as a direct source. I've inserted an actual direct source since you feel it is necessary. Your edit summary also implies that her memoir is an "indirect" source for the mention of "A Man Apart", which is incorrect; and the "Smooth Girl" cite you keep inserting to support it doesn't even mention it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Karrine Steffans appeared in a photoshoot for Smooth Girls, alongside other girls clad in bikinis. The "actual direct source" you inserted is neither actual nor direct. (It can barely be labeled a source.) It consists of a Wikilink to the entry for the magazine Smooth and a simple date and issue number. This is not a "direct link" to outside, third parties but a link to another Wikipedia article! I will insert for the last time the link to the proper, actual and direct source: the magazine issue itself. You are advised to reflect on this minor matter and not to persist in your unwarranted and entirely unjustified edit warring.-The Gnome (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For the last time? Thank you; I'll hold you to that. The content in that section of the article is fully sourced, including the content about her appearance in the Hollywood Swimsuit Edition of Smooth Magazine. The primary source "Smooth Magazine Issue 22" supports the fact that she appeared on the cover of that issue. As I noted above, you are inserting a link to "Smooth Girl" as a source for content that is actually in Smooth Magazine's 2nd annual (2004) Hollywood Swimsuit Issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Freaky Flows" mix tape

Clicking on the artwork at the cited link, it displays: "DT the Kingpin and DJ Rhude Present" and a track listing, as well as the title of the work, "Freaky Flows - Seductively Hosted by Karrine Steffans". Yes, 'DT the Kingpin' is the moniker of Dawton, a former King Magazine exec. I see no indication that Stephen Grey, whose moniker is coincidentally Freaky Flow, had anything to do with the production. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick web research turns out there are two Datwons that could be related to this item: one is the King mag exec and the other is DJ DaTwon, not listed in Wikipedia. It's clear, from additional sources, that the mixtape was put together by DJ Rhude but it's unclear who "DT" is. It could be that the exec is putting his name on it, as the ultimate sponsor, or that there were two DJs. Or maybe not, since the exec could be moonlighting as a DJ. Or maybe three: There's also a DJ Kingpen (same spelling as on the artwork), to add to the confusion. It could mean that "the Kingpen" is unrelated to the magazine's title. So, best to leave it up as the source has it, I agree. And I was wrong about Freaky Flow; it appears the term is now being used to denote (or claim) an uncommon, "freaky" production (see origin of the DJ's moniker). That mixtape's got nothing to do with the DJ Freaky Flow.-The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Website update?

Has the location of the personal website been updated? It used to be www.karrine.com, but if I use an indirect link to that site, it maps me over to www.karrineandco.com. Can't tell if the site is active, though. I was going to change the URL in the article, but I'll leave it for now. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be active, so I updated the link. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mention in the song "Love Me" by Lil Wayne

Lil Wayne uses the line "And she the best with that head / Even better then Karrine" in the very popular song "Love Me", so I think this should be mentioned in the article for people who are trying to understand that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.147.153 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

African American

Do not write a story that she is African American

http://bossip.com/888858/karrine-superhead-steffans-explains-slavery-comments-every-brown-person-is-not-the-same/

Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edits by Mosfetfaser and @BrownHairedGirl:, I'm reinstating the more specific "African American" categories. Seeing those cats removed based on a gossip blog ("BOSSIP") is problematic to begin with, but it did prompt me to look into the matter further. I found the actual comments she made in this (Part 2) interview. (Part 1 is here.) Reviewing her comments in the context of the interview, it is clear that she is saying she prefers to self-identify as an "Islander" rather than "African American". When her comments during the interview raised controversy, she further clarified via Twitter and Instagram that she has "African" ancestry, but not "slaves" in her family history. (Flip through the screen captured images; the original tweets are at her Twitter account.) So removing the cats based on her one interview comment, outside of context, isn't supported.

After a very brief search, I see that she has also previously self-identified as an "African-American woman" between the age of 18 and 35, and a "black actress" in other interviews; her 2nd book was published under the GCP African American label; her resume still boasts that she was nominated for the "African American Literary Award"; BlackNews.com lists her as an African American; she's also listed in books on African American Literary Divas and African American Women's Rhetoric ...

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that she isn't an African-American, she's from the Caribbean. Using "African-American" to describe such people is plain wrong, and the reason why I have always preferred to refer to them as "black". That there are numerous sources that tend to think that all black people are African-American indicates more about their reliability as sources than anything else. When I lived on Bonaire (85% black at the most recent census), it always amused me to hear tourists describe the locals as "African-American" despite the fact that most of them carried Dutch passports. I saw a grand total of two African-Americans during my period there: badly lost and trying to figure out why everyone kept speaking to them in Papiamentu.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Wikipedia defines the African-American category as: citizens of the United States of black African ancestry. She was born in the United States Virgin Islands. Her father was an African-American from New York, and she has at least some black African great-grandparents - "free Africans" - she asserts. So while she may be able to claim to be "Caribbean" through her mother's side, that doesn't undo her African ancestry, does it? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

To think of Virgin Islanders as "American" is a bit odd: they cannot vote, and are granted a limited form of citizenship as a legislative courtesy. Most Caribbean people that I know would take great exception to the category definition and don't think of themselves as "African" at all. It strikes me as being just another example of how a well-intentioned term wound up being expanded to include people that it didn't apply to because some people started to think of "black" as racist.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, BOSSIP is a shit source, but the OP is right: Steffans is an Islander, not an African-American. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• super discussion, respect - Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)