Talk:Karrine Steffans

Pregnant??

It says she is pregnant. I saw a thing with her on TMZ and she didnt look pregnant. The source leads you to some ones myspace page.

Yizette santiago listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yizette santiago. Since editors of this page may have views on the Yizette santiago redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Karrine Steffans-McCrary"

Karrine Steffans has taken to calling herself "Karrine Steffans-McCrary". Her marital status to Darius McCrary is not entirely clear, though they seem to be divorced. Should there be a "Karrine Steffans-McCrary" page redirecting to this article? -The Gnome (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can make a redirect if you'd like, but this article is the first item that shows up when you search for Karrine Steffans-McCrary, so a redirect may not be necessary. Your choice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of contentious material from a BLP

Could someone explain to me in simple terms as to why this diff might be justified by WP:BLP or WP:RS? When the facts are spelt out in detail by sources such as the NY Daily News and CBS, repeatedly blanking the sourced material appears unjustified to me (particularly as I have readded the story twice, added a new source and checked the citations). I have looked at the stale debate already on this talk page, and the previous rationale that there were only self published sources does not now apply. Fæ (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. After a brief look at the sources that were included in your edit, I noticed citations to a streamable online adult video(!), press releases posted on non-reliable sources, and mirror-images of other cited sources. That alone sent up red flags. Of the two possibly reliable sources, NY Daily and BNET (Not CBS, though their financial division owns it) that you used, BNET simply posts an unedited press release from Ellie Reeve (she's the press agent for Vivid entertainment, in case you didn't know). That is certainly not a reliable source for BLP purposes. That leaves us with the one possibly reliable source, NY Daily, which does not support most of what you edited into her article (In 2006? She says was 6 years earlier. Starred in a porn film? Doesn't say that. Judge denied a restraining order? Doesn't say that, and that was merely a single motion in an actual lawsuit that you mention nothing about.) The entry appeared to me to be nothing more than an attempt to stick "Oooh, Superhead Porn Star!" in a biography of a living person with zero context or indication of relevance, so I reverted it. I've reverted similar attempts before. WP:BLP says:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

I see the latest edit to this article to be anything but. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording can be improved, however the citations provided include a video of an interview where she explained herself where the term Superhead came from and about the video. There is no question that the film exists and has been published. Rather than blanking, making it appear that the story is being suppressed in this article, could you suggest a form of words that you would be happy with. The inclusion of the facts here is entirely within the BLP guidance and repeatedly blanking is beginning to look like a censorship issue and under that policy I do not believe that changing this thread subtitle from "Blanking of all material relating to Superhead film" is helpful, as there is no doubt that "Superhead" is the name of the video and Steffans mentions it more than once herself in the video interview.

For the avoidance of doubt the interview with Steffans is embedded on this page: http://newsblaze.com/story/2006041811230100002.mwir/topstory.html

The CNET/BNET article that you believe is a press release is archived at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200605/ai_n16344203/ and includes a clear statement that a judge denied the restraining order, this fact is mentioned by Steffans in her interview.

The NY Daily News article is at http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-04-20/gossip/18328759_1_bill-maher-ja-rule-famous and includes the statement "Tomorrow, Vivid Entertainment plans to release a DVD titled "Superhead," Steffans' nickname in the hip hop world. Her lawyers plan to file a motion in L.A. Federal Court to stop the release."

An additional source that can be included:

• NY Post 24 April 2006 states KARRINE "Superhead" Steffans apparently lives up to her naughty nickname. So says professional swordsman Mr. Marcus, who co-stars with Steffans in the upcoming porn flick, "Superhead," which pays homage to her unique talents. "She is as skilled as the name suggests," Marcus tells Corsair blogger Ron Mwangaguhunga. "I think it's because she likes doing it. That has always been the difference when it comes to sexual women, they really excel at things they enjoy doing . . . sexually." Steffans, who recently dated Bill Maher, is best known for writing a sordid best seller, "Confessions of a Video Vixen," about her bed-hopping exploits with a horde of hip-hop stars.

Fæ (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about including it one way or the other, but it's got to have solid sources. The "CNET/BNET article" you refer to is nothing more than a press release. (Note the words "Market Wire" at the top of the page. Click on it for a description of the "publication": "Read press releases distributed by Market Wire, including company news and finanical [sic] updates".) Also, did you read the entire Daily News article? It's a gossip column. The only thing that might make it reliable is the fact that the author claims to have spoken to Steffans.

I don't have access to the New York Post article, but let me ask you: Was it an item on Page Six, the Post's gossip page? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me just confirm with you, the film exists, the film is controversial, Steffans talks about it during a video interview as part of promoting her book, Steffans explains the source of the name "Superhead". If you don't deny these are facts then I fail to see why they cannot be included in the article, particularly if Steffans herself can be quoted as a source. Even a "gossip" column in the New York post falls under WP:RS. Fæ (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you read WP:V and WP:RS. The fact that something exists has to be verifiable using reliable sources, and gossip columns don't qualify as reliable sources. The video shows Steffans discussing the nickname "Superhead", not the videotape. I just don't see any reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would interpret a column in a reliable source as a potential source, whether some people label it as a gossip column or not. Such a source might be used with caution as with any editorial piece but if it includes direct quotes these fufil WP:RS. In term of WP:V the fact you can go and read the newspaper for yourself, and for the most part read versions and watch the video online, provides perfectly adequate verifiability. As I would hope that you knew that I am an admin and I know that you are an admin, you might expect me to be aware of some of Wikipedia's policies but thank you for your recommendation that I try reading them.

As this discussion has a long history here and I am concerned that Wikipedia is not censored might be an issue as all mention of "Superhead" appears to have been repeatedly expunged and there is no proposal for alternative wording, even though this is a well known nickname and used across multiple reliable sources, I suggest an RFC is in order to ensure a suitable wide feedback. Does anyone have any other suggestions besides blanking the information? Thanks Fæ (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your reply leaves me with the sinking feeling that you read neither WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.") nor WP:RS ("Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.") — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about what I have read, such comments are hard to interpret as anything other than sarcastic and pointy.

1. The film exists, this is verifiable.
2. There is controversy, this is verifiable in sources such as the New York post.
3. The name Superhead and the sexual context is relevant, of interest to the article and is used in multiple sources and articles and is verifiable in interviews with Steffans and in her own books (which she markets on the basis of their sexual nature).

If you have a sensible suggestion that is more than speculation about me or what appear as accusations that I am incompetent to be a Wikipedia administrator, then I would be pleased to read it. Otherwise I suggest having an RFC so we can move on from ad-hom argument. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that last comment. Maybe we should start an RfC, because it seems clear we're not going to agree about the sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

break

As they have raised the point on my talk page, I shall go back to Xenophrenic's quote from BLP: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

The claim that anyone has been in a sex film can be interpreted as titillating or challenged on the basis of whether the article is conservative or not; by itself this is not a reason to delete all controversial article content on sight, particularly when it is sourced. In this case there is no privacy issue as the Superhead film is published, and factually discussed in articles such as this one from Oregon Public Broadcasting. We are dealing with someone who has openly discussed her sex life and the nickname "Superhead" in interviews (see Vibe Vixen 2007 as an example) and promoted her books on the basis of her having lots of sex with various celebrities, consequently it is germane to ensure her sexual background is included in this article and she can be considered someone for whom there are no potential privacy issues with regard to her sex life and there can be no possible harm to living subjects when this exact same material has been so widely reported and anyone can pay for a copy of the sex video in question as there has been no successful attempt to stop publication on legal grounds. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, this does not mean that celebrity topics that may be picked up by tabloids are irrelevant for BLPs on celebrities, particularly when they have based their own celebrity career on scandal and sex (these are fundamentally the subjects of her autobiographical books which are literally graphically explicit). To have a Wikipedia article that includes blatantly promotional quotes such as "a woman on the mend, working her way through a less than savory past and into a brighter future" without providing the context about what the unsavoury past actually is, is to provide a free advert for this author than lacks appropriate weight or neutrality. Fæ (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. Good luck in this.-The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• "In this case there is no privacy issue as the Superhead film is published"

That's fine. Just for the record, what is the reliable source you are citing that says so? All I've seen is indications that "some footage" exists of her doing "some scenes" or "sequences", and a legal battle ensued as to how it would be used. Oh, and I've seen an image of some DVD cover art. Where is the film, or are you referring to the streamable bits if you are a paid member of their website?

• "and factually discussed in articles such as http://news.opb.org/article/tiger_woods_and_other_celebrity_sex_tape_hits_and_misses."

I checked that link, but seem to have missed the factual discussion of it. Could you quote verbatim the factual discussion here, along with what content from that factual discussion we should convey to the reader? All I saw was 3 sentences about sex tapes.

• "someone who has openly discussed ... the nickname "Superhead" in interviews (see Vibe Vixen 2007 as an example)"

I'm looking at that link as I type this, and I don't see where she discusses the moniker. Again, could you quote verbatim Steffans' discussion specifically of that name here, along with what encyclopedic content from that discussion we should convey to the reader? Is it similar to the non-RS embedded video clip of her answering a question that we aren't allowed to hear, where she says it was a personal thing between herself and another person, and wasn't intended to be public?

• "...anyone can pay for a copy of the sex video in question as there has been no successful attempt to stop publication on legal grounds."

Really? Finally something we can use! May I please have the citation to the reliable source that conveys that? Or is this original research on your part?

• "To have a Wikipedia article that includes blatantly promotional quotes such as "a woman on the mend, working her way through a less than savory past and into a brighter future" without providing the context about what the unsavoury past actually is, is to provide a free advert for this author than lacks appropriate weight or neutrality."

Thank you for revealing that personal opinion about this article and it's subject. Adding reliably sourced context is always a good thing. How would you word that context, and to which reliable sources would you cite it? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to stay on the sidelines in this discussion but I may fail in this effort, seeing as the reponses to the points Fæ's making are so weak. Before anything else, Xenophrenic, please explain how this last quote of Fæ reveals a "personal opinion about the article and its subject". And what exactly are you implying by the term "its subject"? Is Fæ biased against Ms Steffans in some way? Is this yet another attempt to turn a discussion abt Ms Steffans' past in porn into a personal issue (i.e. by implying that Fæ is biased against the article's subject)?

What Fæ wrote is an absolutely fair interpretation of what is going on here. To repeat: "To have a Wikipedia article that includes blatantly promotional quotes such as "a woman on the mend, working her way through a less than savory past and into a brighter future" without providing the context about what the unsavoury past actually is, is to provide a free advert for this author". This interpretation of what is in the article needs no "reliable sources" to prove it, as you ask him to provide. Up to you to try and refute it, if you disagree.-The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misread. By "it's subject", I refer to the subject of this Biography of a Living Person. As for your question, "Is Fæ biased against Ms Steffans in some way", I really have no idea, and I'm the wrong person to ask. I also don't think it really matters, if Wikipedia's policies are followed when editing the article.

I never said Fæ's interpretation was unfair; I thanked him/her and asked for suggested context and reliable sources. (And yes, duh, reliable sources will be needed if we are to add it to the article.) I hope that clears up any misunderstanding you may have. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Gnome, it sounds like you might need to throttle back a bit. Xenophrenic's questions are detailed (and some answers I would find a bit obvious from the sources) but I think we can assume good faith even though persistent blanking does not look good in the article history. I'm going to park a response as I lack time at the moment to pursue this, so would welcome any other opinions before I return with a detailed response hopefully in a couple of days if this has not been resolved by everyone else by then. Don't worry I'll add this to my todo list so I don't forget. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, in this particular case, one of the parties engaged in the blanking out states in his Wikipage that he has chosen to "opt out" and does not assume good faith from other editors. He must have his reasons. We sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

He neither assumes good faith nor bad faith, and approaches each editor as a blank slate; and he has good reasons indeed. Happy sailing. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Though the admonition to presume good faith from other editors is not indeed a Wiki rule, it is denoted as "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." I cannot imagine a Wikipedian editor doing good work when one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is not only violated but the violation is publicly (proudly?) proclaimed on the editor's personal page. But, really, enough about you. I've seen this movie already - hell, I've seen it many times before on this subject too! Go ahead and keep trying to justify an obviously untenable position about the contents of the Karrine Steffans entry. I concede I do not have the strength (patience?) to fight this alone, or even in doubles. Your approach to this issue, as well as Malik Shabazz's, are useful in reminding us of the self-evident fact that the information in this online encyclopaedia is only as good as its contributors and editors' input. Avast, ye strudels!-The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

More commentary on editors? Enlightening. My sympathies for your professed poor imagination. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What you perceive as "commentary on editors" (i.e. as something "personal") is criticism of how specific editors approach, and have approached in the recent past, a specific issue on a specific article. That is exactly what this is all about and no more, although it'd be understandable if you want to make it abt something else. Because what you are doing is an attempt to deflect the argument, rather than address it. And the argument is solely about restoring some semblance of encyclopaedic insight into a biography article, Fæ's attempt to do so, and the duo once again blanketing of anything remotely besmirching the profile of the article's subject. Talk about being "passionate!" In case you feel like being on point, again, sometime in the future, I'd advice you to start by enlightening us about the reasons for your (self-proclaimed) violation of one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia editing. The rest is (well crafted) noise.-The Gnome (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"But, really, enough about you." -- The Gnome

Yes, enough -- your commentary on editors instead of their specific edits is not productive, and is frowned upon by the very guideline you just cited. As for a violation to which you allude, could you please provide a diff, so that I may address it? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC Superhead nickname and porn video references

References to Karrine Steffans being featured in a porn video and use of the nickname Superhead have been inconclusively discussed on the basis of WP:BLP guidelines. The controversy is covered in sources such as NY Daily News (which quotes Steffan) and the CBS business network. The Superhead nickname is confirmed by Steffans in a direct interview. Opinions, particularly on this specific interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NOTCENSORED are welcome in order to resolve this discussion which has been running for over a year. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, Fæ, is this a "brief, neutral statement of the issue" that RfC requires (emphasis in original)? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to re-write it, I'm not enamoured with it. I thought it was long but factual. Fæ (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed it down, in particular cutting the explanation: The article should be "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", however in the NY Daily News article Steffans is quoted as saying "That was six years ago, when I was a coke whore. I was a single mom. I needed money. Vivid makes it look like it's a new tape. They're using my current picture and abook title without my permission. If anyone profits from this film, I want my cut, which I will donate to charity... I have better sex tapes at my home - with people more famous than me. I have those for my own pleasure. I could make a ton off them. But I don't make money off sex anymore." consequently privacy seems a non-issue, particularly in the context of Steffans' sexually graphic and autobiographical publications which are marketed on the basis of her sexual notoriety. Fæ (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd be willing to help out, but I need clarification on the precise issue: does the sourcing issue revolve around whether or not she uses the nickname "Superhead"? Or whether or not she made an adult video? --Noleander (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple issues, but each have failed to meet the high quality sourcing requirements required by WP:BLP. We don't have usable sources for the nickname; just a snippet of a Youtube clip where she talks about a private moniker between her and someone she was in a relationship with, and it wasn't intended to be public. She doesn't "use the nickname". We also do not have usable sources conveying that she "made an adult video"; just a gossip page that alludes to the potential release of a "DVD" pending legal action resolutions. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Both the nickname and the fact that the video exists have been repeatedly deleted using BLP as a rationale for the information being removed. Fæ (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What was that reliable source showing that the video exists, again? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a trivial comment. Open your eyes and examine the Vivid Entertainment Group website previously linked in the page history that you have deleted more than once. The video is for sale and nobody has seriously claimed that it does not exist. Do you honestly believe for one second that if the video did not exist that Steffans would have attempted legal action or that the New York Daily News would have carried a story about it? You are doing your case for repeated blanking of sourced material no good by raising such pointy comments in a RFC. Fæ (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Link, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To date, I've only seen a link to a streamable "sex tape", and no sign of the video on DVD that Vivid was intending to sell. Perhaps Vivid lost that court case. I find it curious that the more I ask you for proof of this video for sale, the more you balk at the request. How difficult is it to provide a link? How about a price? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you forget how to use Google? Your question appears so trivial as to look like trolling to me and I strongly object to you claiming I am balking at the request when I only find it pointy and disruptive. Here is one of the many porn selling sites available were you bothered to actually look anything up rather than nitpicking here to stop any progress: http://www.wantedlist.com/detaillist/24190/karrine-steffans-super-head.aspx, the price there is $24.95. Fæ (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that link. I'm sorry my request of you appeared trivial or disruptive, but it was serious. Yes, I actually "bothered" to look it up, and had run into several dead-ends, "discontinued product" and "unavailable" notifications. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude video/nickname - Okay, so both the nickname and video are at issue. I see that, indeed, there is a video for sale on the vivid website that purports to be her, and includes the nickname "superhead" in the title. But editors are not permitted to use personal knowledge to support inclusion of material, particularly in articles about living persons, particularly when the information may be construed as damaging. So: secondary sources are needed that discuss the video. Google contains several hits for this, but they seem to be blogs, or non-reliable sources. Google news has 5 or 10 hits, such as XBiz. but these appear to be very minor entertainment-oriented blogs/gossip columns. Since the allegation of being in an adult video is so disparaging, better sources are really needed. The best two sources seem to be NY Daily News, and the CBS source: are they reliable enough? Malik Shabazz below points out, correctly, that they are also oriented towards gossip and press-releases, not authentic news. Perhaps the collection of gossip reports could be used to support a statement in the article such as "there is dispute about KS's appearance in a video" without making the statement that she definitely appeared in it. But, in the case of BLPs, it is better to err on the safe side and exclude it until better sources are found. --Noleander (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Please note that (a) the New York Daily News "article" is a gossip column, (b) the "CBS business network" is a a Marketwire reprint of a press release (no known relationship to CBS), (c) the video interview is clearly edited and we don't know what the question was. Find reliable sources and we can discuss this further. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From the comments below: "This is a good place to start on something tangible in terms of WP: Whether the pertinent New York Daily News article is a reliable source or not." The question isn't whether the gossip column is a reliable source. Wikipedia's BLP policy takes the Reliable Source policy and

"...extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

As noted above, multiple high quality sources should be readily available if the proposed content is appropriate for a BLP. The NY Daily gossip column is not a reliable source, is tabloidish, and is certainly not a "high quality" reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no definition of tabloid and any story about the life of any "celebrity" could be called gossip. The Times is tabloid format, The Guardian is tabloid format, would you dismiss these as sources? The basic facts in the article by the NY Daily News are verifiable and contains a direct quote from Steffans. There has never been any claim by anyone (including Steffans) that the direct quotation was false. Fæ (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

re: The Times & Guardian, dismiss them as sources in support of what content? Back to the NY Daily, what, exactly, is the wording of the Wikipedia article content that you would cite to the NY Daily gossip column? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The format in which a newspaper is published does not necessarily mean that the newspaper or any of its columns engage in "tabloid journalism". If the NY Daily News (tabloid) newspaper is generally reliable as a source (and numerous Wiki articles cite items from it), then we have to examine the specific, individual item of news as reported in the NY Daily News and evaluate whether the article falls under the category of "tabloid journalism" or is merely celebrity reportage.

Now, tabloid journalism is defined in Wikipedia as emphasizing "topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news." The April 2006 NY Daily News article, which is something of a mini profile of Ms Steffans, contains (a) a selective list of her past relationships, as related in her books, (b) an item about her then-current relationship with Bill Maher, widely reported in the media, and (c) an item about the then-imminent release of a Vivid "porn tape" starring Ms Steffans. (It is unacceptable to deny the "existence" of the video, by the way, since it is not just officially listed on a corporate website but, more importantly, also widely available commercially. We can demand proof of its "existence" as much as we can demand proof that the movie Jaws is available on DVD.) Ms Steffans' opinions and reactions to the prospect of that release are extensively and neutrally quoted in the article. (No, the fact that she has not denied anything quoted in the article cannot be used as something that enhances its credibility.) It is by now quite obvious that Ms Steffans has subsequently both objected to the release of that video (although a court has rejected her challenge) and the commercial use of her alleged nickname. This, for many observers, may be commendable (e.g. from a certain ethical point of view) but does not mean that the pertinent biographical details should be excluded from her biography. Wikipedia is not to be censored and is not a prude. There is nothing in the NY Daily News article that qualifies as anything 'worse' than celebrity reportage and certainly nothing that falls under the category of "tabloid journalism" as defined in Wikipedia's relevant article.-The Gnome (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Swerving around that error-stuffed wall of text, I'll reiterate the unanswered question: What, exactly, is the wording of the Wikipedia article content that you would cite to the NY Daily gossip column? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposed text:

• [Under the section titled "Actress"]

In 2006, Vivid Entertainment announced it planned to release commercially a sex tape, allegedly starring Steffans and produced with her consent [link to Daily News article]. Karrine Steffans filed a request for a temporary restraining order in the courts, claiming that Vivid falsely implied she had an exclusive agreement with them. However, a federal court rejected her filing [link to BNET/CBS Interactive article]. Steffans was reportedly "furious" with Vivid's actions, stating that the company is resurrecting "a piece of her freaky past" and "makes it look like it's a new tape" [link to Daily News article]. Eventually, Vivid relased the tape with the title Superhead [link to Vivid announcement], which was Steffans' nickname in the hip hop world [link to Daily News article].

P.S. As Fæ asked Malik Shabazz, I also ask you to kindly refrain from making pointed comments about opposite opinions and input. If you find my text to be an "error-stuffed wall of text", you are welcome to point out and correct the errors. Otherwise, your conduct is simply obnoxious. Can you stay away from such an attitude? Thanks in advance.-The Gnome (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That proposed text is not acceptable because it relies on the marginal gossip-oriented sources (CBS interactive & Daily News), and they are not adequate given BLP concerns. The only sources we've seen so far that are acceptable are KS's own books (two are on Google Books) and the New York Post article. There seems to be plenty of good material in those reliable sources, so they should can serve as the foundation of some decent text for the article: there is no need to resort to marginal sources. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, you accept the KS books and the New York Post as reliable sources.Could you, then, please submit your own proposed text, on the basis of those sources' content, so that we can take it from there? Thanks.-The Gnome (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, Noleander probably hasn't had a chance to read the full KS books or the NYPost, and is likely working from online preview snippits like the rest of us, but it seems reasonable that the KS books would at least be reliable sources for statements made by Steffans. As for the NYPost source, the text that Fæ transcribed above is all it says -- that's right, just 3 sentences, and it was published before the "DVD" was scheduled to be released, which leads me to believe it, too, was written from a press release. This doesn't strike me as a high quality reliable source suitable for a BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should allow Noleander to explain himself, instead of making interpretations and assumptions about what he wrote or did - or read. That way we could all understand better what's in there. And possibly decide in a more informed manner about the reliability of our potential sources, i.e. Karrine Steffans' memoirs or articles from New York newspapers.

On "just 3 sentences": The reliability of a piece of information does not necessarily depend on the length of the text through which the information is given. The text could be 1003 sentences long and contain nothing but lies! We have here a piece of text, three-sentences long or whatever, that resolutely confirms what Fæ suggested. Whether you or anyone has been "led to believe" that the article was "written for a press release" is unfortunately irrelevant. Our opinion about potential intents, motives, hidden agendas, etc, does not carry any weight at all, especially when the issue is a BLP. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you weren't allowing Noleander to explain himself.

Also on "just 3 sentences": The applicability of information doesn't depend on the number of words used to convey the information, either. Fewer words, especially when accompanied by illustrations, can often suffice to convey the same applicable points where lengthier text was originally used. In addition, the selection of words used, as well as the number of words used, can differ dramatically between writing "from a press release" versus writing "for a press release", as one might require promotional phrasing whereas the other would not. I'd highly recommend a review of WP:MOS. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Already pointed out the errors above; you can scroll up or carry on. As for "obnoxious" corrections to your assertions, believe me, it's no picnic for me either, so do us both a favor and please use more care in conveying what sources say. Problem solved. To wit:

NYDaily doesn't say sex tape, they say DVD; doesn't say "starring Steffans" - might even be a walk-on cameo role; filed a request? - no, simply asked the judge as part of an ongoing lawsuit that "remains pending", according to the same unreliable source; rejected her filing? ... incorrect, note the unreliable source also mentions a permanent injunction still pending; Steffans stated "freaky past"? Not. Eventually released the "tape"? I've seen unreliable sources state they may have released a "DVD" on April 21, but I can't find a reliable source confirming that (and try as I might, I can't purchase such a DVD through Vivid). Finally, I see that you are citing the NYD gossip column and the Vivid press release for all of the above; neither of those qualify as high quality reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I will once again abstain from responding to your personal attacks. It is ironic that you accuse me of refusing to "get the point" while, at the same time, resorting to obnoxious and pointed remarks ("error-stuffed wall of text"). You are, yet again, asked to behave, in order to be able to conduct an orderly discussion.-The Gnome (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1. On "starring Steffans"; "can't purchase it".

The link to Vivid's announcement is here (NSFW). Why would an interested customer have trouble buying it? Or viewing it? Try harder. And why would anyone think that Ms Steffans has anything but a starring role in it, on the basis of (a) the marquee photo at the Vivid link, (b) the title of the DVD, and (c) Ms Steffans' own description of it in the New York Daily News article and her memoirs?

2. On "sex tape or DVD?".

Vivid's linked text explicitly describes the material as "Ms Steffans' sex tape". And the subsequent news items denote that sex tape as being released in DVD form. Are we trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here?

3 On "lawsuit details":

The article in BNET contains this information "Federal Judge George Schiavelli has denied a request for a temporary restraining order by Karrine Steffans, the hip hop music video feature artist known as Superhead, that sought to disrupt distribution of a new Vivid Entertainment DVD titled Superhead." Is this clear enough? I trust it is. But if I have carelessly worded something, feel free to suggest alterations that improve the proposed text. Or submit your own. As to lack of news of subsequent developments, even if true, that would not be a reason to exclude any and all (partial) available information.

4. On "gossip columns":

Why would a interview with Ms Steffans conducted by the New York Daily News and published in its pages be considered as unreliable? I referred below to such news items in similar newspapers,in general, and you asked me to move the general comments on another, more apropriate forum. OK, then let's talk specifically about this news item and this newspaper. Please state your reasons for dismissing NYDN as a reliable source. The Wikipedia article on that newspaper contains nothing that would justify such an assertion. It is baseless.

Please let me know if the above is clear enough to you. Thanks much.-The Gnome (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Clear? Probably not, but I just skimmed over it. If you can address the issues I outlined, and correct your proposed content addition accordingly, that would be great. As for the "personal attacks, obnoxious remarks yada yada yada", you should raise that issue at the appropriate noticeboard, thanks.

I already "addressed the issue". You asked for a specific text that anyone proposes to be inserted on the basis of the available sources - and I did. You objected to the sources and claimed the reasoning supporting their validity is unclear. I responded in detail, as above. Perhaps, if you examine my detailed response a bit more carefully, instead of "skimming over it", you would be able to respond with some substance and contribute in your preferred, productive manner. Signed,The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've re-examined your proposed content addition. The issues I outlined do not appear to have been remedied; in fact, the text and sources appears to be identical to when I last reviewed it. I'll re-check it periodically to see if any progress has been made. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you do realize that nobody put you in charge here don't you? This RFC was created help reach a consensus on inclusion or not. The facts of "Superhead" being a nickname that should explained in the article and similarly that the porn video is notable and should also be mentioned are no longer in doubt and closing this RFC is not contingent on whether you are prepared at some point in the future to personally accept the wording of a proposal for changes. If you want to help resolve this issue, I encourage you to get your finger out and make your own proposal of the handful of words you would accept rather than repeatedly saying the equivalent of "I don't like it" to everyone else's suggestions, otherwise your opinion is starting to look rather irrelevant to the outcome. Fæ (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fæ, thank you for your personal conclusion that certain issues "are no longer in doubt". I regret that I will have to turn down your suggestion that I "make my own" proposal of words, as I prefer instead to simply and accurately represent what high quality reliable sources convey. Making shit up, and then struggling to find "sources" to support it's inclusion, is not only bassakwards, but is contrary to Wikipedia editing policies and is unlikely to resolve the issues expressed in this RFC. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe anyone "made shit up", as far as I can see from the article history, editors here acted in good faith taking material from sources, it was these sources that should be under discussion as to their adequacy rather than accusing editors of bad faith. I do see a problem with non-neutral text that appears to only promote this author being added to the article, and that include the portrait image used with has no appropriate copyright. The issue that started this RFC has been your blanking of sourced material without clear explanation. You have made no positive steps during this discussion to propose alternative sources or put a source up for discussion on RSN or raise for independent review on BLP/N or to make any proposal of what might be alternative text that you would be happy with. Instead you seem to be on a mission to disrupt any possible consensus and find trivial reasons to challenge every possible mention of the nickname "Superhead" or the porn video even when it was clearly quoted in the same sources used for undisputed material in other parts of the article (such as IMDB). Your polemic is tiresome and off-putting for any editor trying to improve this article. From this point on in the RFC I shall follow the policy of WP:DENY which seems the most appropriate way to deal with your behaviour, so please avoid making any comments about me, my edits or what you think might be in my head. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is a good place to start on something tangible in terms of WP: Whether the pertinent New York Daily News article is a reliable source or not. Which leads to the issue of "gossip columns", in general. There is a kind of "gossip column" even in the Wall Street Journal ("Heard On The Street"). Can we agree that not all "gossip columns" are the same, in terms of reliability? If this is true and there exist "gossip columns" that usually (or just often) carry substantiated and verifiable information, then we must accept that labeling a source as a "gossip column" cannot, by itself, be taken as grounds for automatically disregarding the source.-The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This tangent would be better raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, as it doesn't directly pertain to this RFC, and each source is evaluated individually anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The general issue will possibly be raised in the RSN. In the meantime, the individual issue of the reliability of the NY Daily News' "gossip column" remains an issue directly related to the issue raised by the RfC and should be discussed in this page, cogently. Thank you for your contributions, so far.-The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the question of gossip-oriented sources is key here. My opinion is that they are satisfactory for positive/neutral information about a person, but when it comes to highly negative information such as participation in an adult video, they are not satisfactory. Bottom line is that WP BLP policies require great - not just good - sources for potentially defamatory material. The NY Daily News and CBS Biz Report sources don't quite rise to that level. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also her own books which are perfectly good sources for her own biography. I do not have a copy of "Confessions of a Video Vixen" by Steffans, however a simple look at the preview available on Amazon shows chapter 17 is titled "Superhead" and in the introduction she explains that she was known as a stripper and had the nickname "Superhead", further on p197 she explains that she trademarked "Superhead". In "The Vixen Diaries" p139 she confirms the Superhead nickname again. Perhaps someone who has access to copies of these books rather than partial previews could confirm whether the one of the books mentions the sex video and that could be used as an additional reference? --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job on finding references in her books. That said, aren't you going backwards in the article-writing process? Correct me if I am misunderstanding, but it appears that you have pre-formulated content already in mind, and are searching for sources to support it. Instead, can you propose here your content additions, and the reliable sources from which you have derived it? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If her autobigraphies talk about the nickname Superhead, then that would be a reliable source, and then the nickname could be mentioned in the article. Ditto for the video, if mentioned in her autobiographies. --Noleander (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec, to Xenophrenic) To be clear, I have never made any content additions to this article apart from reverting your blanking and I'm not terribly interested in proposing new content so I can hardly be accused of going backwards in writing the article. I have no intention of wasting my time proposing detailed alternative text for this article if it is likely to be endlessly nitpicked over and to be the target of off-putting personal criticism which attempts to make accusations of my motivation, as per your last comment. Considering the history of this talk page, do take some time to check WP:OWN and WP:ADHOM if you are unfamiliar with them. I was alerted to the article due to your repeated blanking of sourced material, often a key indicator of vandalism or edit warring, otherwise this BLP would never have made it to my watch-list. It seems obvious to me that an article for author that has established her career based on her sexual past and sexual notoriety and benefits from having her publicity material uncritically regurgitated in a Wikipedia article should have the minimal balance of explaining what her sexual past actually is. If this imbalance is not resolved by this RFC and the reasons for her notoriety are not made clear, I will propose addressing the balance by removing all dubious quotes such as "She quickly became a full time booty-shaking, breast-baring dancer— but success came at a price" as blatant failures against WP:WEIGHT and WP:ADS. Fæ (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The contentious and inadequately sourced content that was previously removed, as required by WP:BLP, remains absent from the article -- and still isn't supported by her books. Would you care to propose new, reliably sourced content for the article?

• "I have no intention of wasting my time proposing detailed alternative text for this article if it is likely to be endlessly nitpicked over..." -- Fæ

Sorry to hear that. You will likely encounter repeated frustration if you intend to edit Wikipedia BLPs, as only reliably sourced encyclopedic content is allowed. Thank you for your contribution, so far. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Two of her books are in Google Books. In both books she says she had the "self-imposed" nickname "superhead". Neither book mentions the vivid video. On page xiii of "Confessions of a Video Vixen" there is the quote: "Before my 'video girl' career, I was known in some circles as a stripper. Others knew me as 'Superhead', the insatiable lover of many Hollywood stars, sports figures, and some of music's most influential performers and executives. None of that is who I really am, nor does it tell the whole story." Online " here. Quotes from the other book are here. --Noleander (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is also the The New York Post, normally considered a reasonably reliable source (or is every newspaper than ever mentions a porn video always going to be dismissed as tabloid gossip?), this extract from LexisNexis: April 18, 2006; Born For Porn Pg.10 Karrine "Superhead" Steffans (above) - the hip-hop hoochie who blabbed about hooking up with practically every rapper on the planet in her tawdry best-seller, "Confessions of a Video Vixen" - has made the jump into porn. That's right, the woman who most recently was in a semi-serious romance with Bill Maher demonstrates the sexual prowess that earned her her nickname in Vivid Video's "Superhead." The former booty-shaker in videos for LL Cool J, Jay-Z and R. Kelly frolics on film with adult star Mr. Marcus. Fæ (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If that source should prove reliable and useable, what content from that would you propose that we introduce to our article? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommend this text. If you don't like it, perhaps you could make a positive proposal? Fæ (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that proposed text is consistent with the consensus developing here, because it includes citations to NY Daily News Post, NewsBlaze, and other sources that are of dubious reliability. Could you re-cast the proposed text so that it only contains information from KS's autobiographies and the NY Post? Be sure to limit the text to precisely what those sources say. See above links to Google Books, for example. --Noleander (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You characterize the NY Post as being of "dubious reliability" (why?), while, at the same time, you're asking that the text be "re-cast ... so that it only contains information from ... and the NY Post"?! What am I missing here? -The Gnome (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I said the NY Daily News (particularly the gossip column being referenced) was dubious. I said the NY Post is acceptable (provisionally: I have not scrutinized it in depth). Again: the key source here should be KS's books: start with those and you cant go wrong. --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm far from a perfect reader! But read back what you wrote: "...it includes citations to NY Daily Post [...] and other sources that are of dubious reliability. Could you re-cast the proposed text so that it only contains information from [...] and the NY Post?" I believe my misunderstanding was justified, don't you think?

Anyway, we have the New York Post and the New York Daily News. Which would it be? Do we get to use as reliable sources both? Neither? Or which of the two? And why? Thanks in advance.-The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that mistake I made: I've corrected it above. My suggestion is that the NY Daily News is not sufficiently reliable; but that the NY Post may be okay. All the other gossip-oriented sources (BNET, NewsBlaze) and press-release oriented sources are definitely not acceptable for BLP reasons. The fact that you are not reading KS's autobiographical books and using those as your primary sources is puzzling: it is starting to appear as if you have an axe to grind. --Noleander (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On New York newspapers:

I'd be interested to know exactly why the NY Daily News should be dismissed as a reliable rource. If that's the case, we should use the basis for this assertion and amend accordingly the relevant Wikipedia article, as well. Wikipedia demands reliability but is not against citing information from "tabloid" sources.

On "press releases":

Please note that, as Fæ has pointed out, the article on Ms Steffans already contains text taken verbatim from press releases. We exclude text from a CBS-affiliated media outlet but include press releases from the Oprah Winfrey show?

On "autobiographical texts":

You are mistaking me perhaps for someone else. I have never used text taken from Ms Steffans' books - not in our discussion here nor in any of my edits in the article. I do not own her books nor have I ever read any of them (though, this might soon change).

P.S. : I strongly urge you not to make unwarranted and insulting personal remarks ("axe to grind"). They are not welcome in Wikipedia and are especially counter-productive in an RfC. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• A further source that is acceptable for her birth date (the only source cited for that bio data) is http://reviews.aalbc.com/karrine_steffans_2007.htm. This includes the statement: This notoriety came at a cost, however, as she was expected, in turn, to provide oral favors not only for hip-hop stars but for members of their entourages and assorted hangers-on. Nicknamed "Superhead," Karrine became so popular that Vivid Entertainment eventually released an X-rated video [April 10, 2006 http://videovixenmovie.com] of her performing her specialty on a porn star. Presumably there is no objection to being consistent and using this material that has been otherwise accepted in the same article for some years? It is also worth noting that the section that claims she is an actor has been entirely based on her listing in the cast on IMDB and it happens that http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0845006/ also lists her as being the star of the porn video "Super Head" in 2006. Fæ (talk) 11:48, 12 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)