Talk:Karrine Steffans/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


"her encounters with rap stars seem to have led to her having been given the well-known, extremely degrading and misogynistic nickname Superhead." Isn't this editorializing a bit? Changed it to something more cirucmspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinMiller (talkcontribs)

what's not mentioned is she gave herself that nickname —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
and it's not "Superhead" it's Supahead It's a name due to her appearance as Talent in a Vivid Video Adult film and her subsequent suit against Vivid to stop publication

There is a Wikipedia page titled "Superhead" which re-directs to the entry for Karrine Steffans. Is this appropriate?-The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for superhead on wikipedia and finally had to google it to find out her real name. Why is there no mention of her nickname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Because obviously Steffans herself or somebody in her camp is keeping eagle eyes on this article. Andrewowen2000 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Rani Whataburger

who is rani whataburger, it seems like a made up name —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Hot97 morning show interview

"It is rumored...[Interview with Superhead, Hot97 Morning Show] " Someone double check this, I wasn't able to verify the wma file. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

National Enquirer???

OK, seriously, who uses the National Enquirer as a source on Wikipedia when they said that she's pregnant with Bobby Brown's baby? I'm taking it off until a more reputable outlet has verified this to be true. Hihellowhatsup 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you insinuating the National Enquirer is LESS accurate than Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source to use either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Farrah Franklin and Lil Weezy

shes dating lil wayne and she is feuding with Farrah franklin( former member of Destiny's child]] And shes a bitch too.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

O OK THEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Karrine Steffans and Darius McCrary- Over

Just want to inform you all that this article is in need of some updating. I've researched the whole Karrine Steffans and Darius McCrary affair and according to my sources on Zimbio's website, Darius McCrary had some time ago put an end to their engagement and ultimately their relationship. If you want to check my findings you can Yahoo search Karrine Steffans and Darius McCrary and scroll down to find the Zimbio website. When you see the link, click it, it should lead you to the website and simply scroll down some more until you find a comment and featured along-side it, a picture of the Sister 2 Sister magazine cover starring a picture of both ex-lovers on the cover. Read the comment and there you go. So please as I can not edit (up-date) the page, please change it for me, thanks. Something as simple as mentioning the break-up would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietous (talkcontribs) 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous activities

The sources referenced in the article clearly state that Karrine Steffans has previously worked as a porn actress and video stripper. A cursory examination of the text of those sources shows this. And the DVDs are out there, still! There is tngdebate here. So, why are these previous activities keep getting edited out of the text? (Personal attack removed. -X) This is Wikipedia, not the Encyclopaedia of Good Manners. -The Gnome (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, neither of the sources are reliable sources. Second, Steffans was never a porn actress. A home video of her was released by a porn video company. She's no more a porn actress than Kim Kardashian is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Even if the sources were allowable, the wording you inserted in this BLP (i.e.; "porn", "stripper") aren't in those sources. I would recommend you review WP:BLP as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, simply dropping a link to the Wiki rule about reliable sources won't do. Can you please explain in what sense the sources which were already in the article (and used for reference) are not "reliable"? Second, she has shot a movie, with a professional crew (and, yes, we have to use the term loosely), in which she has non-simulated sex with a professional porn actor (nom de porn: Mr Marcus). Having sex on camera with a professional porn actor (not your lover, not your hudband) and getting paid (by Vivid Entertainment) for your participation in a porn movie qualifies you as a porn actress. (I concede that she is not a porn star. Feel free to use "adult movie actress" or any wording which you deem more ..tactful.) A user of Wikipedia who looks for information about this subject's career would be less than fully informed if this fact is kept out, wouldn't you think? -The Gnome (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Just for laughs, here is the "unreliable" website of the African American Literature Book Club on the subject's past career: "...her bootylicious bod came to upstage a bevy of other beauties appearing in such video as Mystikal’s Danger where she went topless except for wearing a pair of sheer, star-shaped pasties over her cannonball implants. ...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 [1] of her performing her specialty on a porn star." Make of this what you will.-The Gnome (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
1) Those sources were not already in the article. You added them with this edit.
2) What makes you think that Steffans "shot a movie with a professional crew" or that she was paid by Vivid? In fact, she sued (unsuccessfully) to stop the release of the film. Please try to get your facts right.
3) If you wish to discuss the video, please be sure to use reliable sources and give it the importance it merits. It certainly doesn't belong in the lede. See Kim Kardashian#Sex tape for ideas. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the confusion about the sources. My mistake - they were found and inserted in the article by me. But you still have not explained anything about their unreliability. Why exactly do you consider these sources unreliable? And why would the African American Literature Book Club website be considered "unreliable"?
The Vivid DVD was shot professionally. It was not a privately shot "sex tape". It features a professional porn star. Have you seen many "private" sex tapes of porn stars? The description of Steffans given by the African American Literature Book Club depicts her, quite explicitly, as being a willing sexual partner for a number of musicians she shot music videos with. Her nickname "superhead" derives from those exploits of hers -- a nickname which she accepts (see interview video, in the references). Then she shoots a porn movie, which they title Superhead in order to capitalize on her "fame". She has a business disagreement with Vivid and she sues them. She loses the case, because the court decided she had given her consent when she signed the contract.
And you want her Wiki entry to be void of any mention of all this? This would make her entry more innocent than Pamela Anderson's. I do not think this is the correct approach in informing Wikipedia readers, no matter how many links you post to (irrelevant and generic) wikirules. -The Gnome (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
1) The content at Newsvine is partially written by its users, and thus not a reliable source (see WP:SPS). Your other source is a press release by the video's manufacturer. Neither source describes Steffans as a porn star or a stripper (which is what you used the sources for in the first place).
2) You keep saying the video was shot professionally. Do you have a single source that says Steffans "shot a porn movie"? (Even Vivid, in its press release, hedges and says "Ms. Steffans ... performs scenes in the Vivid DVD".) Or do you think if you keep repeating something long enough it will become true? (PS: What signed contract? Got a source for that one?)
3) A properly-sourced paragraph about Steffans and her sexual relationships is appropriate, so long as it is not given undue weight. See WP:BLP.
4) I'm sorry that you don't like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Like them or not, we have to abide by them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
1)There is nothing in the wikipedia rules which categorizes a source as "unreliable" when it is written by its users. What Newsvine is saying is that Ms Steffans shot a porn video. This happens to be true. (I now have seen the video, by the way.) Are we supposed now to categorize a website by Dawkins on evolution as "unreliable" because it is written by "its user"? I find, for example, the Newsvine item more reliable than Ms Steffans' biography on the International Movie Database and you know why? Because the latter entry has been written by Steffans Publishing.
2) If you allow yourself to be filmed doing something of potential general interest (having sex, climbing a mountain, etc) and have the movie edited, packaged and released --and get paid for it-- then I'm sorry but, yes, you have "shot" a video. And if the outfit that shot you are a professional outfit (are we disputing perhaps that Vivid Entertainment are professionals -in what they do-?), then, yes, you shot a video professionally. There is no need to have sat in front of a director, getting your cues for "Action" and "Cut". I do not see why you keep arguing the point.
3)Where, pray, is the appropriate mention of her (factual) past activities in front of the camera, then? A user of Wikipedia, I repeat, will have no inkling that there is a commercial video out of her performing fellatio, by reading your preferred version of her entry. I presume you find nothing wrong with that.
4) We need wiki rules and I approve of almost all of them and try to abide by them. By we do not need a "rule" to see something obvious and logical, I hope. I "like" wiki rules! The primary issue here is whether this is NOTABLE as a piece of biographical information (it clearly is) and whether it is TRUE (again, it is). How you choose to word the relevant mention is secondary. -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing in the wikipedia rules which categorizes a source as "unreliable" when it is written by its users. Uh, no. Please read WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." Also see WP:BLPSPS.
If you allow yourself to be filmed ... As I've asked you repeatedly, where is a reliable source that says Steffans "had the movie edited, packaged and released" (i.e., that she was an active participant in the production and sale of the video) or that she was paid for it?
You know, if you put a fraction of this effort into finding reliable sources, we could have ended this discussion a long time ago. Here's one, for example. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful reference. Incidentally, this works both ways: If you had put a fraction of this effort into finding a clip of the infamous video, we could have ended this discussion a long time ago. Here is one (it's NSFW) and if, after watching it, you insist that it was shot without her consent, without the intention of it going out for wide release, and without a professional porn film crew, then I have truly nothing more to say. In any case, I'm not going to change the article to reflect the subject's past activities because I suspect resolute bias here and I don't have much stomach for edit wars. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(1) An article talk page isn't the proper venue for discussing Wikipedia policies. Please review WP:RS and WP:BLP for a more detailed explanation as to why Newsvine, with its lack of editorial oversight, does not qualify as a reliable source for factual information. You may engage editors in further policy discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. Re: Steffans' biography on IMDB, it isn't presently cited in the article - but if you were planning on using it, it could be cited as support for opinion by Steffans about Steffans - not as a reliable source of factual content. (2) None of this is being argued; in fact, I'm not even addressing it. Do you have reliably sourced content about videos that you wished to add to the Wikipedia article? If so, what is the content, and what is the reliable source you are citing? (3) Content may be added, if properly sourced. Controversial content in a BLP may also be added, but must be cited to high quality sources. (4) The primary issue here is not whether content is "TRUE", as you will note in the very first sentence of this most important Wikipedia policy. Frankly speaking, if you find the content in high-quality reliable sources, then you can add it to the article. If you are having difficulty finding high quality reliable sources to support your proposed content, that is indicative the content is either not completely accurate, not very relevant, not very notable or some combination of the three. No one is trying to censor the article from "true" facts here; we're just trying to make sure content adheres to policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The article also contains the description of Ms Steffans' book as "the story of a woman on the mend, working her way through a less than savory past and into a brighter future." This description reads like a blurb and is unsourced. Shouldn't it be categorized as the personal opinion of the user who wrote it? And excised? -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's from the press release from the publisher of the book being described, and should be described as such. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Added 'Criticism' section, per WP:CRIT and WP:SS. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You added a vague "Criticism" section per an essay? I've removed it per the core policy, WP:NPOV, one of the 5 pillars of editing on Wikipedia. The content you introduced isn't supported by the source you cited for a number of reasons. In addition, we don't add "Criticism" sections to biographies of living people - if there are valid and relevant criticisms to be included, they should be placed in the appropriate locations in the biography, not in a separate little pig-pen we build for them.
Here is the source you quoted:
Tricia Rose, a professor of American studies at the University of California at Santa Cruz who has written books about hip-hop and black women's sexuality, called Steffans's story a "well-rehearsed narrative . . . the black version of the prostitute who makes good or comes to her senses." The newness of this story is that it's from a black woman from the world of music videos, and that she names names. But Rose questions whether newness amounts to progressiveness. "We need this story less than we need rich, complicated, reflective stories," said Rose. "I'm glad it's out there, and I hope it opens up conversations. The question is, will the book be a catalyst for serious conversations, as opposed to allowing easy answers to prevail, like video-hoing is bad, or video-hoing is a great vehicle as long as you avoid the pitfalls. Those are the simple-minded positions that I think we need to worry about."
You preface your content by saying, "Steffans' books have been criticized in some quarters of the black community", something not stated in your source. (Note that all books, movies, music albums and other creative works are reviewed by critics as a matter of course -- and this is no more relevant or necessary to note in a BLP than saying "her book was published on paper, with words and everything...") The comments by Tricia Rose, when words are not cherry-picked from the source, actually read like praise for the book, not criticism. Rose is "glad it's out there", and hopes it opens up conversations. Rose didn't call Steffans' book a well-rehearsed narrative; she was referring to the age-old story of a woman who climbs back up from the bottom rung to finally make good. It's a very common, well-rehearsed story - nothing new in that situation, by itself. Did you intentionally mean to mischaracterize the source, or did you misread it? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the response. I see that you're serious about keeping the biography of Ms Steffans clean from any besmirching allegations and slurs. I now realize my mistakes -and they are unforivable for a Wikipedia entry: Steffans' past does NOT include a stint in porn (it's irrelevant that she shot at least one, professionally); her book(s) did NOT meet with any adverse criticism; her autobiography was actually praised by prof. Tricia Rose; she's an author and has ALWAYS been nothing but an author (OK, with a few music video appearances, of which the less said in Wikipedia, the better). This has been most enlightening. I'm glad we had this discussion. (Doubly glad if you're Bill Maher. Love the jokes.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Real name

The copy of a Los Angeles police investigation report has been posted in .pdf format on the net (link), and shows Ms Steffans' real name to be Karin Antonia Stephens. Is there a doubt about the document's authenticity? Irrespective of its source (gossip website TMZ, owned by Warner Brothers), the document seems genuine. If it is genuine, that info merits inclusion in the article.-The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see at least two problems with the police report:
  1. Its source does matter. is not a reliable source, and materials posted there cannot be relied upon.
  2. Assuming it's genuine, the police report relates to Karin Antonia Stephens. It doesn't mention Karrine Steffans.
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. On the first point, I would assume a Warner Brothers-owned website is rather more reliable than wiki-blocked websites such as the Enquirer's. But let's move on. On the second point, it seems fairly certain that this is not about a person other than Karrine Steffans : the details of the incident and the names of the other participants (e.g. McCrary) make this a virtual impossibility --unless McCrary, that night, attacked two women --with similar names! In conclusion, either the document is a forgery or it is genuine and should be taken into account --even if it was found in the trash ! It's not a gossip website's opinion on something but a document. -The Gnome (talk)
(EC):The link provided is not to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia standards. Further, the linked source claims someone's name is variously "Stephens, Karin Antonia" or also "Desiree Stephens, Karin Antonia" and makes no indication as to what the birth name was, or what the present legal name is. Note the statement on the documents at the link: THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE VALID IDENTIFICATION, which may also explain why other information (such as date of birth) conflict between this source and the Wikipedia article. High quality 2nd-party sources should be used for biographical information. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The police document carries the statement you mention so that no one can use it as proof of identification in a court of law, to law enforcement agencies, for business transactions or for dealings with the state. It does not in any way preclude its use for academic or encyclopaedic purposes. As a matter of fact, documents of far smaller legal value than a police inverstigation report (e.g. copies of contracts, personal notes, etc) are constantly cited in academic works --and in Wikipedia, of course. So, the only question would be whether or not the document is genuine. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"So, the only question would be whether or not the document is genuine."
Incorrect. In fact, that question isn't even under consideration. The issue here isn't whether the documents are "genuine" (I'm sure the paper can be touched by the human hand, and words are indeed written on them); or "accurate" (I'm sure there is at least some verifiably correct information on those papers); or whether they concern the subject of this Wikipedia article (I'm sure, as you noted above, that the documents likely refer to Steffans). If you will review WP:V, you'll see that the real question is whether or not the content you wish to add to the article is reliably sourced -- a point I will iterate here from my previous response above. As near as I can tell, is not a "source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required, and certainly doesn't meet the even more stringent requirement of WP:BLP as a "high quality source". As you noted above, low quality sources are constantly being cited in Wikipedia, and this article is no exception; improvement of articles to meet Wikipedia's requirements is a never-ending task. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The question of verifiability (of cited news reports, documents, etc) is indeed directly related to realiability (of sources), per WP. Let's see; we are talking about the reproduction of documents and not of news reports or even opinions. So, what are the criteria for refusing a website as a reliable source for a document's reproduction ? (Implying that we do not trust them not to have forged or manipulated it or checked its origin for verifiability.) You seem to be claiming rather subjective criteria. You wrote "As near as I can tell, is not a 'source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' as required, and certainly doesn't meet the even more stringent requirement of WP:BLP as a 'high quality source'." (My emphasis.) America Online is owned by Warner Brothers Corp. I'd imagine that these organisations, which are behind the referenced website, would be rather cautious about publishing or posting anything libelous or defamatory, let alone forged! They do have a rather vigilant legal dept. In fact, it seems we might be defaming Warners and AOL by characterizing their citing of documents as unreliable.
As to "low quality sources", you misunderstood. My point was that, irrespective of whether a document is legally binding (e.g. constitutes proof of identity), it can be and has been used for academic purposes, throughout academic workings - and routinely so. Such, as near as I can tell, is the case of the LAPD report and Ms Steffans' real name. Yes, there are many "low quality sources being constantly used in Wikipedia" but this has nothing to do with the issue raised here.-The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
"Implying that we do not trust them not to have ... checked its origin for verifiability."
Exactly. And I wasn't merely implying; I was strongly asserting. There is plenty of fiction, speculation, unchecked enduser-generated content, etc., available on the numerous AOL-associated web domains, usually with appropriate disclaimers, of course. I'm sure their "rather vigilant legal dept." has their backside covered - no worries. As for real names versus birth names versus current names, please find that information in the required 2nd party reliable sources. Using allegedly primary copies of dubious origin hosted on a nondescript web domain doesn't meet the high quality source requirements. (The fact that even those source documents can't settle on a single full name, or accurate date of birth, only emphasises the point.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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)


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.

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. (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:
The CNET/BNET article that you believe is a press release is archived at 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 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.
(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. (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 (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 (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)


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. (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?
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 's making are so weak. Before anything else, Xenophrenic, please explain how this last quote of reveals a "personal opinion about the article and its subject". And what exactly are you implying by the term "its subject"? Is 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 is biased against the article's subject)?
What 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 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 (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, '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. -- (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. (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. (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. (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. (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:, the price there is $24.95. (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. (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 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 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)
Xenophrenic wrote: "I wasn't aware that you weren't allowing Noleander to explain himself." This does not make any sense. You tried to respond on behalf of Noleander ("As I understand, Noleander probably hasn't had a chance to read the full KS books or the NYPost"), so I pointed out that it'd be better if Noleander would speak for himself. It was truly a very simple remark but, for some reason, this whole discussion seems to bring out lítigiousness in people.
On WP:MOS: Prompted by your recommendation, I re-read the policy and found nothing that supports any of the points you have made so far in this discussion. But it was a welcome break, a sorbet. The rest of your above response is unclear. You seem not to contest the trivial fact that length of message has no bearing on reliability of message - but you still have some objections about applicability, is that correct? Kindly explain what is this fascinating new WP angle ("applicability") all about. Many thanks in advance.-The Gnome (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "You tried to respond on behalf of ..."
...Myself, and only myself. Note the "I" in "As I understand..." I wouldn't presume to speak for Noleander, or anyone else, as is clear to anyone that reads what I wrote with a modicum of care. I merely conveyed, after reading his "KS's own books (two are on Google Books)" description, my belief that he was working with Google snippet previews, rather than the whole books.
  • "The rest of your above response is unclear."
I know, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Admitting it is the first step. I'm rooting gor you. Sincerely, The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, please, do not "rooting gor me" — that sounds like a personal attack, which is prohibited. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you refuse my one-time only offer to root gor you, it is no longer operative. I re-iterate my suggestion that you reconsider your priorities in Wikipedia. How precious can another person's goat be? You can do it! -The Gnome (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Nah, my priorities are fine, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 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. (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 includes the portrait image used with no appropriate copyright release. 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 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Such hostility, Fæ. And surely you joke. How is it that you manage to admonish Wikipedia editors not to comment about you or your motivations, yet in the same breath you do just that? " seem to be on a mission to disrupt ... look like trolling to me ... forget how to use Google? ... You have made no positive steps ... Your question appears so trivial ... nitpicking here to stop any progress ... Your polemic is tiresome ... your opinion is starting to look rather irrelevant ... your blanking of sourced material without clear explanation ..."
Oh stop already; your flip-flopping between attacking editors and then complaining about being attacked is finally losing its ironic humor. Why not shelve the animosity long enough to improve the article?
The issue that started this RFC was repeated insertion of contentious content that did not meet the requirements outlined in several Wikipedia policies. Malik, myself and other editors have indeed removed certain content, as instructed by Wikipedia policy, and never engaged in "blanking sourced material without clear explanation" -- and I'm sure you are quite aware of that. The clear explanations are still on this discussion page above, as well as in the archived discussion pages. I'll be happy to step you through them yet again, if you really feel it is necessary. No one, Fæ, is denying the existence of a "Superhead" moniker, or the existence of some adult film footage. The struggle right now is finding BLP-suitable sources that cover those topics, so that we can review them and determine what (if any) encyclopedic, BLP-compliant content about those topics should appear in this article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could reconcile for us these two statements you just made, in your effort to defend the undefensible: (1) "Making shit up, and then struggling to find "sources" to support it's sic inclusion"; and (2) "No one ... is denying the existence of a Superhead moniker, or the existence of some adult film footage". No one? FYI, dear Xenophrenic, that 2nd statement is, right there, the whole "shit", to use your terminology. For oodles of bytes, you disputed that either tape or moniker existed. (Frankly, the whole effort to work productively on this -small- issue feels, on my part, like working against a filibuster.)
On the "Superhead nickname and porn video references":
, from the start, pointed out the elementary fact that, since Ms Steffans, even by her own account, made a name for herself exclusively through using her sexuality, to omit any and all mention of her sexual past (except for a snippit of an Oprah Winfrey press release) is not just a serious omission but misinformation! And too damn close to how a fan would write the article. Cheers!-The Gnome (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "For oodles of bytes, you disputed that either tape or moniker existed."
Incorrect (yet again). Probably due to the afore mentioned reading problem. Not once have I indicated that the moniker or certain steamy adult footage didn't exist. Perhaps you have me confused with one of the other editors. To jog your memory: I was the editor that suggested the moniker was private, between two individuals and not intended to be made public, but was being widely disseminated through non-reliable sources mostly as a disparagement -- and therefore ran afoul of BLP requirements for inclusion. I was also the editor that has always acknowledged there exists some old adult footage of Steffans (just 2 short scenes, it turns out), but I contested any characterizations of it that didn't come from high quality reliable sources. As for any information "even by Steffans' own account", that should be very easy to reliably source, right? I don't think any editors would have a problem with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
On "Probably do [sic] to the afore mentioned reading problem":
You would agree, perhaps, that a reading problem often results from a writing problem. To wit (as the splenetic commentary would put it): Write better and perhaps we can better understand you! Feel free to ask why your text is often thick or for pointers about improving your writing. This is a sincere proposition to a fellow Wiki editor.
Your acknowledgement of your reading problem (more specifically, comprehension) is an encouraging first step toward resolving the problem. Keep searching for the root cause; your first guess is certainly off the mark. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I freely acknowledge that I run into comprehension problems when reading your texts in Wikipedia - and your texts only. This friendly tip would probably alert an editor into looking back again at his hastily (e.g. "do" instead of "due") and rather obfuscating writing style (e.g. in this thread ad nauseam). There's a rather big gap between what you seem keen to communicate and what comes out. That's all I can help you with, dear Xenophrenic. Go ahead and have one more go - but mind the gap.-The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging your deficiency. You've demonstrated that you can read through minor typos, spelling errors and homophonetic slips (do/due) and still ascertain the intended content, so the problem, or 'gap', obviously does not exist between what I intend to say and what you read. The gap forms once the information has rattled around in your noggin for a bit, and frequently reveals itself when you later attempt to reconvey that information (e.g., "You tried to respond on behalf of Noleander" or "you disputed that either tape or moniker existed"). The resultant derangement would be humorous, if not so frequent. I'll continue to pull for you! Oh, and I always have an endless supply of meat to toss into the darkness under the bridge. Cheers! Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sincere apologies for not realizing that your writing deficiency has its roots in homophony. I tend to write without mouthing the words but this does not make me superior in any way to people who do. Joking aside, I must observe that your prose seems to be getting a bit off the rails recently, a bit too excited. Why's that? I usually appreciate your positive contributions to a discussion but perhaps you have been rattled by the recent revelations that "nobody put you in charge here" or that not everyone considers as sacrosant the things you do. Admittedly, such unexpected heresies can rattle one's noggin. But do try for a stiffer resolution. And work on that gap. Sincere regards, The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I accept your sincere apology. And, of course, I stand ready to help you work on that gap. I do consider the protections afforded to living individuals by WP:BLP as "sacrosant" [sic], and I hope you would do the same. Ciao, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that you've agreed that your writing deficiency has its roots in speaking out the words as you type them, I sincerely hold a lot of hope that you will manage, and very soon, to step over the gap, safely. (Chewing gum as you type, I'd imagine, would help.) Just don't look down! Otherwise, you would be tempted to pick up morsels of petty comfort, such as small bits of "sacrosant" or even croissant - fluffy and tasty but ultimately no substitute for real food. Arrivederla, The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You've misread again. No such agreement exists. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
On Jogging The Moniker:
Agreeing (finally!) that the moniker exists is a solid, good start and a step in the right direction. I am serious! All we have to do now, in this worthy RfC, is
I was unaware until now that you had not agreed that the moniker exists. Your previous posts appeared to me to indicate that you already knew it existed, and that you were merely struggling with the issue of its origin, usage and relevance to this BLP. But if the moniker's mere existence is a new revelation for you, then yes, you have indeed made a big step in the right direction. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I actually (along with many others) insisted that both the nickname and the commercially produced sex tape existed and should be in the article. Plus that Ms Steffans had originally signed a release agreement with Vivid on that tape. You disputed all this. The huge gap in your reasoning is evident by your latest line of "defense" : While you still dispute the reliability of the sources some editors have proposed to use, you ask them what text they would use from those sources for the article! You should know, dear Xenophrenic, that when the sources are indeed unreliable, we do NOT "negotiate" what we will selectively use from them! It's the same kind of faulty logic that's guided your denial, thus far, about Ms Steffans' sexual past and her porn endeavors.
Actually, no, I never asked that. Try again? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Never asked that?? Try again? Sure! Here's Xenophrenic (or an impostor) at 16:32, 11 July 2011: "If that source should prove reliable and useable, what content from that would you propose that we introduce to our article?" Over to you - but always mind the gap.-The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Very good! Now carefully re-read what you claimed I asked, and compare that to what I actually asked, and voilà! I'm always happy to help you cross your gaps in understanding. I've never asked, and would never ask, what content an editor would use from sources that I dispute as unreliable. I asked what content an editor would use from a source if it were proven reliable and useable. That makes your subsequent diatribe about negotiating the selective use of content from unreliable sources rather comical, but I welcomed the chuckle - thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the penultimate defense - "I Meant Something Else! (The ultimate, for tomorrow, is "I Was Not Serious!") Did you, now? So, you asked an editor what text he would use from source A, if source A proves to be reliable --with emphasis on "if", as you now claim. Alrighty, then. Is this your suggested modus operandi for BLPs from now on? That we first formulate an article's text from a certain source and then establish whether or not the source is reliable?? I must admit, that's brilliant comedy.-The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
An even better defense is mine: "I said something else!" I should probably make a template of that for ease of use when responding to your leaps across gaps.  :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite the gallant effort, the comedy of your attempts to be argumentative, like most comedy, turns sad after a bit of inspection. Go ahead and create the template. I'm sure it will come handy every time you digress and divert, which is apparently quite often. Case in point, what you just did: You had asked another editor a specific question which I quoted verbatim. (You wrote "If that source should prove reliable and useable, what content from that would you propose that we introduce to our article?") That question goes against what you have been arguing for, all along, about reliable sources! It also runs against Wikipedia policy - please look up BLP and RS. You see, dear Xenophrenic, we do not "negotiate" about BLP text coming from sources that are not accepted as reliable. Clear?
I direct your attention to the part where I said: "If that source should prove reliable". Ramble on about unreliable sources BLP violations to your heart's content; my hypotheticals concern only reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What you revealed by asking that question is that, indeed, as remarked, you seem to operate under the assumption that you own the article. You don't. Yet you ask editors to submit (for your approval!) the text they would put in if you accept their sources. Sad. -The Gnome (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting misinterpretation. I get a chuckle out of any comment of yours about me containing the words "you seem". Very enlightening. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
But if this will help the discussion, by all means, I give you that you are the one who kept asking that the sexual parts of her bio be inserted in the Steffans while the rest of us were denying the obvious. Guide us onwards and let's move on, then.-The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the generous offer, but I respectfully decline. Let's just go with what I actually proposed, not your misinterpretation of same. Thanks much, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
(a) examine whether the aforementioned moniker is strictly a private affair that, with possibly malicious motives, went public, or a moniker in the more common use of the term, i.e. something that friends and acquaintances call a person (note that in the latter case, when the subject is publicly known, the moniker sometimes travels from the small world of acquaintances to the media), and
(b) evaluate the available sources for the moniker as to their reliability for this kind of article.
re: Your (a) and (b) suggestions, I would like to propose a slightly different course of action, and a more logically prioritized order. (a) List here the high quality reliable sources that discuss the subject matter; (b) propose new, relevant, encyclopedic content for our article derived exclusively from those high quality reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
(See reponse below, re Reliable Sources)-The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Will do! Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On sex life/sex tape: The length of the sex tape, subsequently made available from Vivid, can be discussed and perhaps agreed upon. (The DVD-format product available from Vivid's website is anything but "2 short scenes" long. I hope we will not debate the definition of "long".) The important thing, for this BLP article, is to establish if the sex tape exists (we agreed on this too, it exists!) to insert suitable text about it for the article, in the context of Ms Steffans' sexual past. Thank you for your continued contributions and your efforts, so far, in this RfC. We're making progress. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, "The important thing, for this BLP article," is to (a) determine which high quality reliable sources that discuss the subject matter we will be using, and (b) then propose new, relevant, encyclopedic content for our article derived exclusively from those high quality reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see we're past the stage whereby the length of the sex tape is disputed! Let's not look back, then.
I've no idea what the length of the footage is, as I haven't seen a reliable source on it, and I'm not real interested in *cough* doing my own original research. Non-RS say that it is just 2 short scenes that originally appeared in a Marcus video, but were recycled into another video 6 years later, after she gained some notability.Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not what Ms Steffans alleged in her suit, which was about sharing of rights. It was in subsequent interviews that she claimed that Vivid tried to gain from her notability. As to the length of the scenes, I recommend that you (a) do not use non-RS, and (b) work on that cough, lest the horses are frightened. Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've yet to see any reliable sources on the lawsuit. The Vivid press release, obviously not an RS, claims a lawsuit existed, but I've never seen the resolution of that legal action if it did exist. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact that we have no news about the lawsuit's resolution (or its travels through the court system) means that there should be no mention of the lawsuit itself in the article? That's patently ridiculous. But, perhaps, you will scare up another irrelevant Wiki rule to prevent further talk about that, too. -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to scare up additional policies; WP:BLP and WP:RS still suffice to disallow the use of non-RS such as Vivid press releases, or copies of Vivid press releases in other publications. What information do you have, from high quality reliable sources, about alleged court actions? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On reliable sources: We have, so far, online text relevant to Ms Steffans' biography from the African American Literature Book Club, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, CBS-affiliate BNET, and off-line text from Ms Steffans' memoirs (snippets available online, too). Do we use them? And if not, why not?-The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So far, we have her books, which can be used as RS for certain content, and probably not for other content; we have some non-gossip news articles. Copies of press releases and book club articles aren't reliable sources for assertions of fact. As for "why not?" -- Do we really need a rehash of WP:RS with specific regard to WP:BLP? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ms Steffans' memoirs should be, by default, treated (with extra caution) as secondary sources for Reliability and only in support of what third-party RS relate. (It is OK to use memoirs in order to lift and quote opinions as stated by the memoir's writer.) I will probably buy and check out one or two of her tomes but this is for later.
About the "news articles": Please be specific: Which articles and which news sources from the ones cited so far in this discussion and used in past edits do you, personally, find reliable and quotable? -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, you can determine which sources I find compliant by observing which ones I introduce or specifically cite in an article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I refuse to accept your personal preferences as a Wiki rule (or even a "mere guideline", as you put it). Try again! -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 18 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? -- (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. (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. (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? (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: " 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 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 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] 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 also lists her as being the star of the porn video "Super Head" in 2006. (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Since I made this comment pointing out that this source supports the facts of the Superhead nickname and porn video of the same name, The African American Literature Book Club citation (a website that claims to be the largest and most frequently visited web site dedicated to books by and about black people, based on was soon afterwards blanked from the article by Xenophrenic without explanation despite being linked in the article for two years previously (an argument that Xenophrenic has used to justify the retention of other material that promotes Steffans). I have raised the citation for independent review on WP:RSN rather than going through another set of reverts and off-putting griefing on this talk page. (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The source you are talking about is a promotion and advertizing website with ZERO editorial oversight. It was being cited in the article as a source for birth place and date, information that is readily available in her biography, publisher's profile and numerous reliable news sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy -- so I replaced the source. "Blanked without explanation", you wrongly claim? I noted the removal of the site in the edit summary. And while I am here, I might as well address another lie: I have never justified the retention of any material based upon the length of time it has been in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It must have been someone else, then, using your handle who wrote, in the discussion above about the "bold" changes made to the article, "The material has been in the article since at least last year," as if this has any relevance. There's an impostor about!
As to the African-American Literary Book organisation, it is an advocacy organisation, which, as such, of course, "promotes" issues and people, as Wikipedia informs us. (Don't you ever look for information in Wikipedia?)
You seem to be confused -surely unintentionally. You confuse the promotion for commercial purposes (e.g. The Oprah Winfrey Show press release) with the advocacy/promotion of ideology, causes, politics, etc (e.g. the AALBC). Now that a reliable, neutral (in fact, supportive of Ms Steffans' POV) website clearly relates her lifestory, nickname and all, suddenly (and after "at least last year") we find it unacceptable? Let's not be too obvious.-The Gnome (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
No imposters; that was indeed me correcting Fæ on the proper application of WP:BOLD. Fæ was operating under the misconception that the Oprah quote was new content recently added by me, when it has actually existed in the article for years. If you need further help understanding the relevance to the discussion, just let me know and I'll help you cross your gap in understanding.
No confusion as to the nature of the promotion & advertizing site: AALBC. It does not appear to be a high quality reliable source that meets WP:BLP and WP:RS requirements. I don't see the "Oprah press release" to which you refer. Link, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody died and put you in charge, there is no consensus that AALBC is not a reliable source, I believe it to be perfectly acceptable. Your problem with ownership of this article has been blatantly apparent. (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
This recent implication from you, that the African-American Literary Book organisation's website "does not appear to be a high quality reliable source that meets WP:BLP and WP:RS requirements" is the most outrageous you've made so far. I know this achievement take some doing but there you have it. Hard work pays off!-The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


  • Exclude video/nickname I don't believe this information is important and if true it needs to be established via the highest quality reliable sources. For example does the subject actually admit that she starred in a porn video? Is it still possible that this is simply untrue? While the possibility remains that it is untrue I agree that it absolutely should not be in the article. Even if true, it should only appear if highest quality reliable sources agree that it is both true - and important. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to this RfC. Can you please explain the value of the subject admitting she starred in a porn video? We're trying to establish, through adequately reliable sources, if the subject did do that and if such an act was notable - or, to use your term, "important". If all that is established, and she denies that she shot a porn video, why must that information be excluded from the article? This is a question valid for all biographical information in Wikipedia. Thanks, again.-The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you have understood what I said. I agree that if it is established beyond all doubt that the subject did in fact shoot a porn video and we can be 100% certain that it's not, say, a case of mistaken identity or a case of a malicious prank or a case of someone filming her without consent and this event is so noteworthy that even the highest quality reliable sources, preferrably multiple sources, have chosen to report on this, then perhaps it should be included. I can't see that all of this is satisfied although I admit I haven't read every word of the above. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. We agree that whether the subject actually admits that she starred in a porn video or not is irrelevant. It was not too clear the first time. Actually, I agree with almost everything you wrote above. I would only disagree with the last "perhaps", because, if we establish the information as above, it'd be mandatory for the BLP article to contain it.-The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
So it seems to largely come down to what the reliable sources are actually saying and from I can gather from the above, if we exclude low quality sources, they're not saying a lot. We have an article in the New York Post that is mentioned several times but I can't find a link to the actual text, and there is said to be more in her autobiography(?). Is it possible to reproduce somewhere what these sources actually say so that others can give a more informed view? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The NYPost gossip blurb to which you refer has been reproduced in full, above. It's only a few sentences long (I checked through Lexis), and was accurately transcribed above by Fæ:
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.
Do you feel this content complies with this WP:BLP admonition: "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."
Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That appears to be a gossip column and I would be surprised if it satisfied even RS much less the stricter BLP; it is obvious to me that it is not of the high quality that BLP requires. Are there others though? What does Steffans say about the video in her autobiography? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the Superhead nickname, this is in Steffans' books, this was discussed and sourced above. As for the porn video there is no doubt it exists (the DVD is for sale as linked above) and Steffans has never denied being in the video, that she went to court in an unsuccessful attempt to stop sales of the video should also make this unambiguous. (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Striking my comment and replacing below after it was tampered with by Xenophrenic by being misleadingly indented but then having later replies by a second editor. (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Or more correctly, a "Superhead moniker" does exist, and is very briefly mentioned in her books. (Steffans says she came up with it, and it was private between her and her partner, but after the relationship soured, it became very public and a word of disparagement; she now loathes it and calls it distasteful; she also says she tried to take the sting out of it by briefly owning and embracing it - literally copyrighting the term and putting it on T-shirts and other apparel, coupled with a new meaning.)
There also apparently "exists" some old adult video footage shot of Steffans, but reliable sources detailing it's incorporation into a video or "sex tape" are virtually nonexistent, as are the details of any lawsuits and court actions or agreements. There have been no "unsuccessful" court cases discussed here (only a single unsuccessful motion in a court room), and no reliable sources discussing legal actions (only a non-RS press release from Vivid Entertainment). The biggest hurdle for both the nickname and the adult film footage, aside from sourcing, is determination if the subject matter is even significant, encyclopedic and relevant enough for this BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes again I agree. I had a look at the video and I am convinced that it exists and that it is almost certainly a video in which the subject is featured. This is however irrelevant if there are not reliable sources establishing notability. On the "superhead" nickname, it would be original research to use the autobiography if that is the only reliable source discussing it, see WP:SELFPUB, point 5. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Moniker: Thank you for providing this important information. So, Karrine Steffans herself says she came up with the moniker "Superhead", it was ostensibly "private between her and her partner", but after the relationship soured, it became public and "a word of disparagement". And, even more importantly, she admits that she subsequently put it on T-shirts and sold it, giving as her reason for that to "take the sting out of it".
Note that Steffans herself took the moniker public - for whatever reason. There are no longer issues of "privacy" or "basic decency", about which another editor worried. And we finally have a reliable source! (This is certainly not self-promotional.)
Porn movie: Ms Steffans' admittedly intense sexual past has been the major focus of her memoirs and self-help books. The sources of her notoriety (i.e. notability) are exclusively those books. Information about her sexual past (including starring in a sex video opposite a professional porn star) is, therefore, absolutely necessary for the article. Without the relevant information, there is simply no context.
The above justifes inclusion of the relevant information as significant, encyclopedic and relevant for this BLP.-The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
On the moniker: Yes, the term "exists" in her books - a Google Books search confirms that - but it also confirms that out of all of her published books, there is a combined total of two and a half sentences on it (Oh, and a header of a chapter wherein she only mentions it once). So moving beyond the sourcing issue momentarily, for the sake of discussion, does it qualify as significant, encyclopedic content for a BLP? If so, what information about this moniker would you wish to convey, and how would you word it?
On the film footage: Yes, Steffans has a sordid sexual past, agreed. We should indeed include significant and encyclopedic content from high quality reliable sources on that subject. Steffans, herself, has discussed it in her books and TV interviews. But you lost me when you transitioned from that to "including starring in a sex video" as absolutely necessary -- based on what? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
On the moniker:
I'm taking a small break to read/peruse Ms Steffans memoirs. When one engages in other people's "shit" (as your terminology would have it), one is often forced to pay the price for it, plus handling & postage. Her own offerings may perhaps contain the appropriate context for the moniker's inclusion in this article. Or they may not. From the google-available texts, it appears as if the moniker was something for which Ms Steffans was proud, at the time, a significant piece of information (if verifiably true), showing her values as a young, ambitious female model in the hip hop world. But this, for the time being, is no more than conjecture and close to OR.
On the porn movie:
I would say that having (a) "a sordid sexual past" and (b) "a sordid sexual past plus a porn movie" are two, notably different categories. And, therefore, necessary as encyclopaedic info. But it seems we still have to overcome, about this too, the RS hurdle: There seems to be consensus, so far, that the movie exists; that, at some point in time, it found its way to commercial distribution (Vivid et al); that it co-starred a professional male porn star (i.e. it was not a private sex tape, featuring a life partner); and that Ms Steffans subsequently objected to its release. We are now trying to agree on the reliability of sources. But it's clearly of a piece with the subject's sexual past.-The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Did I understand your "pay the price" remark correctly to mean you are actually buying her books to read? Wow, that's dedication. I went the public library route, as I wasn't too keen on adding that literature to my personal collection.
The public libraries in my neck of the woods do not stock Ms Steffans' books. Their loss, perhaps. As to my "dedication", I thank you for your congratulations. It will not be the first time I head down to the gutter in my quest for scientific and anthropological knowledge. And I'm not referring to hip hop models only.-The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see her calling the nickname disgusting, and saying she "loathes" it as being proud of it. Her trademarking of the term was after she says she discovered it had a different, positive meaning especially in the UK (perhaps Fæ can confirm or clarify this for us) "affiliated with higher learning" ... brainy, or something. Sounds like damage-control to me, not pride. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly the point! Wikipedia editors should be guided by Wikipedia policies and not be affected by speculation as to what the intentions of an article's subject might be! We are not supposed to care how the subject feels about a given fact of her life, either: If that fact happens to be properly sourced for a BLP and notable, it should be in the article. And that's irrespective of whether he/she feels "proud" or "disgusted" about it. Yes, it may come as a huge surprise to some Wikipedia editors but we're not here to defend the honour of distressed damsels.-The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
(Restored comment) With regard to the Superhead nickname, this is in Steffans' books, this was discussed and sourced above. As for the porn video there is no doubt it exists (the DVD is for sale as linked above) and Steffans has never denied being in the video, that she went to court in an unsuccessful attempt to stop sales of the video should also make this unambiguous. (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fae, I am afraid I can't see any connection between your response and what I wrote above. The point still stands that as far as I can see notability of the material is far from established. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Your original opinion was "Exclude video/nickname", my response (to that comment rather than the long thread in-between) was about the same video and the same nickname which was why it was connected. Thanks (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, and I responded to your point before you struck it and moved it to the end of the thread. I feel very strongly that this material should be completely excluded. If you maintain otherwise, you need to say why. Your response does not contain a compelling argument for why we should ignore all rules and include the material anyway. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to IAR, there are sources under discussion for the porn video and I believe there is no disagreement that if we can agree a reliable source then it should be added to this BLP to ensure the article has appropriate weight. Sources such as the NY Post and Daily News (New York) have been labelled "gossip" but a story such as a celebrity groupie appearing in a porn video is likely to only be discussed in the press in editorial columns, such stories must still fulfil the newspaper's editorial policy (unless you believe the NYP has no such policy?). Similarly the AALBC website (previously uncontroversially used as a source for other biographical material in the article until blanked by Xenophrenic) appears a suitable source that explains the context of this porn video, that website is not pitched as a gossip column but an independent literary review website. Within the definition of BLP, there is no possible damage to the subject with regard to this material as it has been well covered by the press and the author is self-promoted and promoted by her publisher for writing salacious sexual autobiographical books where she makes (mostly unsupported) claims of having sex with multiple music industry celebrities. As for even the mention of "Superhead" being repeatedly blanked from this article, this is plainly ridiculous as this has been repeated in multiple reliable sources (GNews search and multiple newsprint sources such as Philadelphia Daily News, February 26, 2007 "Jenice Armstrong; 'Ebony' party a showcase" automatically refer to Steffans as Karrine "Superhead" Steffans) including her own books, magazines (GBooks search) and independent and promotional interviews with Steffans (Interview video with Steffans, Max Paul interview with Steffans, radio interview with Steffans where she objects to the Superhead nickname, they talk about the porn video and her appearance in it and she is challenged about using her sex life to promote her books before she hangs up on the show). (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You say "a celebrity groupie appearing in a porn video is likely to only be discussed in the press in editorial columns". Correct, and for the same reason it isn't to be covered in BLPs in Wikipedia. We do not consider editorial columns to be highly reliable sources, and yes, that makes it difficult to include some titillating facts, but those are the rules. Now as for the NYP piece it isn't a case that anyone is "labelling" it as "gossip"; it is self evident from the tone and style of writing that it is, I'm sorry, in this case, very trashy gossip. The worst kind of gossip. It fails the test of "highly reliable" by a New York City mile. Has the respected New York Times covered this for some reason? If not, why not? As far as saying of the subject, "there is no possible damage to the subject" because she is "self-promoted and promoted by her publisher for writing salacious sexual autobiographical books where she makes (mostly unsupported) claims of having sex with multiple music industry celebrities", I have to say, firstly, it is a BLP violation to say this in the talk page, and whatever you think of her morals, it has no bearing whatever on whether BLP continues to apply strictly. She is obviously damaged emotionally by all this or she wouldn't have taken legal action, don't you think? As for the 'Superhead' thing, perhaps that should be discussed separately. Keeping this porn video stuff out should be first priority. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have said nothing about her morals, you appear to be making false inferences from my comment. Personally I wish her good luck for becoming rich by sleeping around and writing popular "confessional" diaries about the experience. My concern here is for a neutral article that has appropriate weight for all viewpoints rather than just uncritically regurgitating material such as that put out by Steffans Publishing to promote Steffans' books.
She took legal action to stop the commercial sale of the video, there is no claim that she took legal action for any other reason (such as libel). She is self-promoted as attested by the fact that she chooses to appear on shows such as Oprah to promote her books (as linked and quoted by Xenophrenic in the current article) and by independent descriptions of her work such as "self-aggrandizement" (NY Daily News [2]). Her books are plainly salacious as you can see for yourself in the previews linked above and have been described in the press as "bawdy" (Philadelphia Inquirer - Sep 29, 2005) and "Scurrilous gossip and name-dropping abound" (from review of The Vixen Diaries by Publishers Weekly, Reed Business Information).
I have no opinion on whether she is "emotionally damaged" but the fact that she writes about her claim of rape at 13 repeatedly in her works (for which there is no related evidence or prosecution to support these claims) puts the claims in the public domain and these are not then unpublished claims about a person that would be undue weight for an encyclopaedic article, and in practice this is currently in the article, an identical argument about weight and editorial judgement applies to her appearance and notoriety for appearing in a porn video.
If you genuinely feel this talk page represents a BLP violation and requires censorship, please raise the matter correctly with Oversight or at BLP/N for action. Thanks (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
None of this seems to address the problem of the lack of reliable sourcing. I simply wanted to point out that BLP applies in the talk page just as it does in the article. I am sure she is self promoted, and she may be 'self aggrandising'. You implied and continue to imply that Steffans is dishonest or may be dishonest and I get the feeling you are arguing that this somehow negates the need for strict adherence to the BLP policy. Now you question the veracity of her claim that she was raped and hint that this might be made up because there is no supporting evidence or a related conviction. Actually, it is well known that most rapes go unreported so it makes more sense to assume she is telling the truth. So please address the concern about the sourcing. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I am making no implications or hints, these are in your head not in my comments. Please be clear about the distinction, as these claims about my motivation which I have already responded to, are rapidly looking like a personal attack. I find it peculiar that you are unconcerned about allegations of serious crimes but want to claim BLP violation for a video which is undoubtedly for sale, entitled "Super head", has no current legal dispute and for which Steffans is listed as the lead actor (on IMDB and elsewhere). At this point enough has been put forward as sourcing and the reasons for attempting to dismiss these multiple independent sources while retaining compromised promotional sources and material in the article are highly doubtful and woolly interpretations of RS and SELFPUB. The article is non-neutral and serves to promote Steffans' books, this should be balanced in accordance with WP:WEIGHT by a clear explanation of why she is notorious for her sex life by using independent sources rather than cherry-picking positive and promotional sources that Steffans Publishing would be happy to include. (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources list

To avoid confusion, here is a list of sources that have been found to support this RFC, please add to these lists if appropriate alternatives are found. (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Sources for "Superhead" nickname:
    1. Newsblaze interview with Steffans [3]
    2. New York Daily News, 4 April 2006, Vixen's 'Confessions':maher A 'super' Lover [4]
    3. Interview in printed magazine Vibe Vixen, 2007, Karrine Steffans says her Superhead days are over... [5]
    4. The African American Literature Book Club, From Superhead to Supermom with direct interview with Steffans [6]
      Note, this includes a direct interview with Steffans by the well established journalist Kam Williams.
    5. Steffans' book Confessions of a Video Vixen [7]
    6. Steffans' book The Vixen Diaries [8]
    7. IMDB cast listing for Super Head [9]
    8. Promotional radio interview on Rickey Smiley morning show where she objects to questions about "Superhead" [10]
    9. Promotional radio interview with Jamie Foxx where she discusses "Superhead" [11]
    10. Sunday Telegraph (Australia), 9 July 2006, Soul sistas hit back at rap sexism - US artists aim to pull hip-hop out of the gutter, Adam Harvey, "In one of the year's best-selling autobiographies, former hip-hop video dancer Karrine Steffans describes how her career led to drug addiction, a series of two-minute intimate encounters with music stars, and an unshakeable nickname: Superhead."
  • Sources for the existence of the "Super head" porn DVD with Steffans as the lead actor:
    1. BNet, May 2006, Federal Judge Tosses Hip-Hop Star Karrine "Superhead" Steffans' Bid to Halt Release of New Vivid DVD [12]
    2. New York Daily News, 4 April 2006, Vixen's 'Confessions':maher A 'super' Lover [13]
    3. OPB News, 1 Oct 2010, Tiger Woods and Other Celebrity Sex Tape Hits and Misses [14]
    4. Wanted List, commercial website selling the DVD for $24.95, Karrine Steffans: Super Head [15]
    5. XBiz, June 2011, Vivid legal case to protect their interest in this porn DVD and others, Vivid in Apparent Settlement Deal With CelebrityCash [16]
    6. Vivid (publisher) website about the DVD [17] with on-line streaming
    7. The African American Literature Book Club, From Superhead to Supermom with direct interview with Steffans [18]
    8. IMDB cast listing for Super Head [19]
    9. New York Post, 24 April 2006, KARRINE "Superhead" Steffans apparently lives up to her naughty nickname. See full quotation above.
As a start
  1. Press release, so reliable only for basic facts where not self-promoting.
  2. This is a really poor source.
  3. This appears to be an acceptable source that the "SuperHead" name was used. It provides so little context to that, though, it's hard to say how it would be included in the article.
  4. This at least provides the context in which the name was used.
  5. This is a press release,
  6. So is this.
  7. I'm typing this from 1985, audio streaming hasn't been invented yet.
  8. Same. You want music, listen to the radio, you durn kids!
And the next few...
  1. Terrible source.
  2. Terrible source.
  3. Terrible source.
  4. Advertisement.
  5. Micro-mention.
  6. Advertisement.
  7. IMDB is not reliable for disputed facts.
  8. It should be a no-nonsense BLP removal if material from that source is used.
In the wash-up, there appears to be some material supporting the nickname, but nothing like what would be required for it to appear in the article. As one of the frequent nay-sayers of BLP enforcement, this is exactly the situation that the policy is intended to cover. The majority of the mentions are "self-promotions" by various venues that clearly derive benefit from increasing the titillation factor, so they need to be treated with caution. There's a good deal of disruption above in what should have been a fairly straight-forward discussion of sources. In the absence of decent sources (and these are simply woeful) then the material needs to stay off the page.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As you are involved in responding to an ANI complaint by Xenophrenic about me rather than this RFC, you are not an uninvolved person that would be suitable to wash-up this RFC. You have not examined all the sources above and your dismissal of sources as "terrible" or "micro-mention" is unhelpful. In the particular instance of IMDB, this is not a source acceptable for bio data, however use here is to give a cast list for a film rather than bio data, for this use is it normally accepted. Your rejection of sources as "press release" is unhelpful as press release may be used as sources for pertinent factual information, particularly when they are from the publisher. You will note that the article currently relies on sources such as Steffans Publishing, these are not dismissed as press releases. Thanks (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If the issue had not already been clearly and admirably discussed above, I'd have commented further. Since it appears that you didn't listen to those arguments, I was loathe to repeat them. These are appalling sources, and your continued insistence otherwise is puzzling at best. And giving me the brush off from this talk page? That's just silly. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I must be misunderstanding what you were trying to do. By using the words "wash-up" I thought you were attempting to close down RFC discussion early? You are welcome to contribute to talk page discussion and my intention is not to give you the "brush off" from general discussion. (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Then I'll apologise for giving that impression and perhaps we can all start over? I'm happy to provide more meaningful commentary on the sources, if there will be better more civil discussion on them. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
To Fae, another point is that there are some reliable sources on Steffans and it is clear that a decent biography could be written, but from what I can see, no one has really tried to do this. And it shouldn't be that hard. I can already see that her life has three parts, not really captured in the article: (a) a difficult childhood; (b) dancer, stripper, hip hop video dancer/model, groupie; and (c) (what probably establishes her notability) best selling author. It's not a bad story, really. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That is a fair assessment, although from what I have (been forced to) read recently, I would further define the third part as (c) Best selling author / Speaker / Media personality, as she appears to have been trying to reinvent herself. Even from her first book, she has been promoting herself not as a gossip-monger of salacious stories (although that aspect certainly boosted book sales figures), but as a "bad-girl-turned-good" survivor/example chock-full of cautionary advice for young women and criticism of female exploitation. I'm skeptical of that superhero transformation myself, but that appears to be the focus of her more recent endeavors. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Include both. There's a weighting issue, and the article certainly shouldn't be dominated by the information, but the sources are sufficiently reliable for inclusion. The "tabloid" issue is certainly worth discussing, but the intent of that is to prevent articles on Lindsay Lohan and the like from devolving into long histories of sordid behaviour at the expense of coverage of the actual notability. This isn't that case. This is a woman whose career has focused on sex and the "Superhead" information is just one more fact in producing an overall image of the subject.—Kww(talk) 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Which source in your view is of sufficient quality to justify inclusion of the porn video incident in an article this short where we can also be fairly sure the subject regrets the incident, took legal action to prevent its release, and is offended by it? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)