Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:57, 28 March 2012

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Caribbean: U.S. Virgin Islands Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the United States Virgin Islands work group.

Hip-hop Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Proposed sources

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

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

Reliable Sources with usable content about adult video footage

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

Discussion on sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After reviewing the revision history on the article page, talk page, and looking further into editor Xenophrenic I must say that this does appear to be a clear cut example of article ownership at its worst. Xenophrenic you have been banned for your actions before and have been confirmed to be a sockpuppet through proper channels, verifiable by looking at your talk page history that you continually attempt to hide by removing an outpour of opposition to your "contributions". Please stop attempting to skew articles. I came here looking for information about the validity of one of Karrine's claims and was immediately suspicious as to there being no even passing reference to any of her liaisons which of course brought me to the history page, then talk page. It seems as though you are almost singlehandedly skewing this article Xenophrenic. No offense meant personally. Warmtoast (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Model" or "Hip hop dancer" ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "bona fides"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steffans in college speaking tours

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute about source

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

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

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

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

"Freaky Flows" mix tape

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

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

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Caribbean articles
• Unknown-importance Caribbean articles
• Start-Class United States Virgin Islands articles
• Unknown-importance United States Virgin Islands articles
• United States Virgin Islands articles
• WikiProject Caribbean articles
• Unassessed Hip-hop articles
• Unknown-importance Hip-hop articles
• WikiProject Hip-hop articles