Talk:Stephanie Adams/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Birthdate

{{editprotected}} Since Playboy doesn't post the birth date portion of their monthly data sheet on the Playmates online, the birth date can't be found on their site. Although, this source which is the source for information here states that her birthday is July 24, 1970. That is the same date that was removed in this edit. So can that be added back in? Dismas|^(talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well as much as you and I might not agree on things, I totally agree with you here on this one. And if you need further resources, other than the biographies on Goddessy.com, StephanieAdams.com and Sapphica.com, just google "Stephanie Adams July 24, 1970" and you'll find this. This one's a no-brainer. Swiksek (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we agree here but just so you know... Google searches aren't admissible as a source. A lot of sites get their info from Wikipedia, therefore we'd be referencing ourselves. As an aside, IMDb is unreliable as well since the data there is mostly user contributed like Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disabled the edit protected, give me few to make the cites and I'll re enable it. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1st ref: born on 24 July, 1970

I actually just went thru the first 6 pages of the search query, and did not run across anything I would call reliable. However, since the birthdate is not otherwise contested, I think this will be fine. It would be helpful if someone could help come up with one or two more additional sources. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One excellent source is the Playboy November 1992 magazine. In it the data sheet has her month, day, and year of birth. However, most of you cannot access the pay site to Playboy unless you are a member and the datasheet is no where it can be seen online. But it's in there.

Here are a few online sources:

Which Celebrity Shares Your Birthdate?

Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual People

And the most reliable sources are:

Stephanie Adams: Biography.

GODDESSY: About The Author

It's ok to obtain information from the subject's biography, as long as the information is not controversial or self-promoting. A birth date is hardly either.

Incidentally, how can you prove the other playmate's dates of births and why aren't they all questioned/removed? Swiksek (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, lets cite them, at least two or three on the birth date.

Because I'm working with this article at the moment. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Since NvS has given his permission for the birthdate to be included in the article, can we have it corrected per the MOS and have the "th" taken out as well has have it linked so that user preferences may take effect? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done You know there's no reason why all reference sources have to be online. Find out which edition of Playboy has her birthdate in it, and use {{cite magazine}}. Happy‑melon 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my back issues don't go back that far.... Dismas|^(talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

measurements

{{editprotected}}

Can the measurements section be removed until independent reliable sources can be found? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Jredmond (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And you can add the measurements back, upon taking a look at this reliable source on Playboy.com: Playboy.com: Stephanie Adams

Guys, it's on Playboy.com as well as her Playboy magazine's data sheet. Why are you trying to remove information that has been public since her November 1992 centerfold?

Again, why not remove all of the measurements of all of the playmates, since you want to be so discriminatory against this one? Swiksek (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Playboy is not independent source on this one, and not reliable.

To answer your question about the other articles... because I'm working with this article at the moment. I'm not concerned at this moment with all the playmates. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so I can just go to the other playmate's profiles and remove the same information you requested to have removed here because it isn't sited there either then. Swiksek (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you obviously read the reliable source I provided, yet said nothing, so the facts will inevitably be added back again. Why didn't you do the homework yourself before asking to have it removed, unless you for some reason wanted to remove it regardless. It's ok to have discrepancies with eachother but let's be objective about the article here. The facts are already proven facts. Swiksek (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could cite an independent reliable source on this one? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The one that says "Playboy.com: Stephanie Adams" above is Playboy.com, which is an independent reliable source. Did you not take a look at it? Click on the link here. If Wiki wants playmates on here, then Playboy.com is their best reliable source for facts about them. Swiksek (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If she is a playmate, then playboy is not independent. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Playboy is an independent and reliable source because their enterprise and web site are independently run by people who are not employed by Stephanie Adams. And don't tell me not to edit other playmates' data when it is consistent with what you are ridiculously claiming to have removed about this playmate. Swiksek (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Playboy and playmate are intertwined. They are not independent of each other. Perhaps an authoritative reliable source? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks, aren't we taking this a lil' too far? Playboy would be the best source for the information that's being asked for. Tabercil (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Agree with Tabercil. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What I am asking for is not impossible. Strengthen the sourcing and don't edit over protection. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's likely not impossible, but it is unreasonable. In this particular subject, Playboy "playmates," what is likely to be a more accurate source for the disputed information.... than Playboy, which lists said information in each edition with the piece on the "playmate?" Common sense should prevail here. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean, what source more reliable than Playboy would bother? I concede that point: few if any reliable sources would bother. Does that make Playboy reliable? Not hardly. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "material is attributable to a reliable published source". We have a published source for the information: Playboy. The only question at this point is whether source in question is reliable, and I would contend that playboy does count as reliable in this context. As well, let me spin a chain of logic here. The information on Playboy's website (height, weight, bust, hips, etc.) would be taken from the data sheet that accompanies the centerfold, correct? And the information on the data sheet is in the model's own handwriting, no? So what we have to look at is how the information presented in the data sheet match up with WP:SELFPUB and offhand I cannot see how the data sheet violates that requirement. Tabercil (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to meet the requirement. Can you reference where it is stated the model self publishes this? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... that might be a challenge finding a clear statement that the handwriting on the data sheet is the models. I did however find this mention on the Playboy website: "Prior to September 1959, Playboy did not ask Playmates to complete Data Sheets." This makes it clear that the Data Sheet is filled out by the Playmate themselves. Would that do in the interim? Tabercil (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, it is not clear enough. We really need to get this right, being a BLP and all. As an aside, I honestly don't think measurements are really encyclopedic. I mean, as she gets older, they change, no? Swiksek/Ladysekhmet mentioned above that about removing measurements from all playmate articles (why am I not doing so?...), given my rationale of unencylcopedic, I'm inclined to go with this [being that measurements are unencyclopedia]. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So if the measurements such as height and weight are unencyclopedic for Playmates, then they wouldn't be encyclopedic for athletes, correct? After all, as they age their stats will change as well. So they should be removed from articles such as Wayne Gretsky, Marcel Dionne and Gordie Howe, no? Tabercil (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And there's this statement on a website on a review of a Playboy DVD: "Another innovation was the inclusion of a Playmate´s data sheet, written in her own handwriting and listing her personal information, likes and dislikes." Clear enough? Tabercil (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is this? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erk. Sorry... here Tabercil (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this with mounting disbelief. First, what reason is there to believe what a softcore porn mag cares to write about people appearing in it? Secondly, even if her dimensions verifiably were such-and-such back on a given day in 1992 or whenever it was, why should they be the same at any other time? Thirdly, what does it matter what her dimensions are or were? -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I commented along those lines directly above. REgards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Does it really matter now? No. Did it really matter then? Arguments can be easily made for "yes." The point of the budding edit war between NonvocalScream and the other party appeared to be that NvS was challenging the inclusion of the subjects measurements in this article when every other article about Playboy Playmates includes the disputed information. For one reason or another, NvS appears to have a problem with only this particular subject. Why is that, NvS? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i don't know. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to understand. Are we supposed to infer that you are now taking this personally? That you do have a problem only with this particular subject and it's because of the edit you are responding to your link? -- Sean Martin (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are supposed to infer that the reason I am editing this article, rather than every playmate is because this is the only article I have received concern about. It needs work. We (you, I, and others) are working on it. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Like Hoary I also read this particular section with mounting disbelief. Largely because I find the bizarre rationales given for dismissing Playboy's web site as a suitable source and the gymnastics folks are having to go thru to get it accepted simply mind-boggling. But even more so because I'm ending up actually agreeing with Stephanie Adams (sorry, I mean "Swiksek") and arguing for her side.

We now need verification that the data sheets are actually in the playmates own handwriting? Good lord. When referencing an article in a newspaper do we have to be concerned that the quotes in the article aren't really from who they claim to be from because we don't have an audio recording from which we can verify the words were said in the quoted person's voice?

Whether you approve of the magazine's content or not, Playboy is a reputable, established publication and sufficiently independent from the subject of this article. Playboy has been used as an acceptable reference in hundreds of articles here in Wikipedia. We've now got to say they aren't sufficient support for a piece of info central to their basic business, that is, the dimensions of the naked women they feature? Should we not except Sports Illustrated as a source for game scores, or the Wall Street Journal for stock prices?

NonvocalScream, are you really suggesting that information which has been included for years in hundreds of playmate articles here on Wikipedia, not to mention similar information in hundreds if not thousands of articles about athletes, should be removed or, at least, specifically sourced? Hell, the infobox for nearly every High School listed in Wikipedia contains info on school colors and what their mascot is without requiring any independent verification.

There is a lot of trivial, badly source info in this article that should go and very good (and still unanswered) questions have been asked about those. Don't you think you're going a bit overboard on requiring three forms of government issued ID to verify her measurements and age? -- Sean Martin (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your disbelief and mine are very different. ¶ NonvocalScream, are you really suggesting that information which has been included for years in hundreds of playmate articles here on Wikipedia, not to mention similar information in hundreds if not thousands of articles about athletes, should be removed or, at least, specifically sourced? That doesn't sound a bad idea to me. ¶ Hell, the infobox for nearly every High School listed in Wikipedia contains info on school colors and what their mascot is without requiring any independent verification. I hope that's not true, as the great majority of high schools don't have mascots (and perhaps not even colors) -- but that little matter aside, it is indeed easy to check for colors and mascots. For the "vital statistics" of cheesecake models and the like, only a vanishingly small percentage of people can actually check. Those other people who are interested (not me) have to read and believe. ¶ How reliable are these statistics? I haven't a clue (and neither do I care). But I've no reason to think they're accurate. Why should they be any more accurate than, say, the models' names? One "playmate" who's well known (perhaps grotesquely overknown) is "Anna Nicole Smith". Her article suggests that she was in real life Vickie Lynn somebody when she first appeared in Playboy; I've no idea what the surname was, but there's no suggestion in the article that it was "Smith". The article tells us that she first appeared in Playboy as "Vickie Smith", later as "Anna Nicole Smith". Now, obviously a woman who's 165 cm tall can't be credibly passed off as 180 cm or vice versa (or similar), but what other constraints are there on what's written (whether or not actually in the person's own handwriting)? -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So... back to the topic at hand. Is Playboy then deemed a reliable source for her dimensions? And I would argue that the dimensions can be considered encyclopedic as there are a number of scientific studies that have been done with the information off the Playmate Data Sheet: [1], [2], [3] Tabercil (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Playboy has an interest in making those measurements... good measurements, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So we now need to discuss what constitutes "good" measurements? If I were to do a plot of the measurements of all playmates for the last 20 years and find that the majority had a bust measurement of 39 would that be an indication that Playboy is intentionally mis-stating the numbers, or an indication that they are intentionally looking for women with large breasts? "Playboy has an interest in making those measurements... good measurements" I think it far more likely Playboy has an interest in using models who have good measurements, there really isn't a reason for them to make them up.

Why must it be assumed Playboy is taking the less ethical route of falsifying the data? This is really coming across to me as searching for reasons to not accept Playboy as a source. "Well, how do we know the data sheets are actually in the models own handwriting? I mean, how do we know Playboy isn't making the measurements up?" Seriously? -- Sean Martin (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All of these questions, are valid questions. This makes the one source, questionable. Is there another, reliable authoritative source? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So the model sheets are not to be taken as reliable, even though scientific studies have been done on their basis? The information is considered reliable enough for university researchers from The American University, Trinity College (Connecticut), Mercyhurst College, University of Louisville and University of Richmond to publish peer-reviewed papers, yet its not reliable enough for Wikipedia?!? Tabercil (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the abstract of "Cultural representations of thinness in women, redux: Playboy magazine's depiction of beauty from 1979 to 1999". (I chose this among Ta bercil's three links as its URL is by far the most impressive.) Unfortunately the abstract is all that I can look at without forking out $31.50, which seems steep for such a short article. It's clear even from the abstract that the research is based on these numbers. What I'd like to see is the "Methods" section; this may explain, or it may instead refer the reader to a methodological discussion of an earlier study that it to some degree replicates.

Let's imagine for a moment that the measurements were indeed inaccurate. They could be mere guesswork, or the inaccuracy could be purposeful. Clearly they're taken seriously by many people, so I find it hard to imagine that they're guesswork or not taken seriously by the editorial staff. I thus infer that any inaccuracy would be purposeful. If there were purposeful inaccuracy, I find it hard to believe that it would not contribute to the image that Playboy is trying to create for its readers. And the abstract starts by saying the study analyzes "Playboy's portrayal of the male ideal of feminine beauty, in terms of overall body size, percent normative weight, and waist-to-hip ratios". It seems to me that the "portrayal" could be photographic or it could be numerical. Intuitively, it seems more likely to be numerical: a study of the photographic portrayals would, I imagine, have to consider how the women were portrayed. (E.g. to what extent do the poses emphasize this or that dimension?)

So I conclude that any inaccuracy in dimensions would be purposeful, ideal-driven inaccuracy, and not at all incompatible with a scientific study of male ideals of beauty. And thus that the scientific use of these dimensions for the purpose of investigating ideals does not imply that they are reliable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the information presented is taken from the model proper, so I think WP:SELFPUB applies here more than WP:RS. So we have a person's own statement that they are (say) six feet tall. (Now if it Verne Troyer saying he's six feet then I can see it being a topic of controversy <G>). Generally things like height, weight, bra size, etc. are not considered controversial information so why are we arguing about it? Could someone please point me with specificity to where Stephanie's statements (printed via Playboy) about what her measurements were at the time of her centerfold violate SELFPUB? Tabercil (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• All pornography or soft porn publications exaggerate the measurements of their models, they always have and I'm sure they always will. I'm astounded that this is a matter of any contention at all. Often, the models will collude in this. A very few models have objectively verifiable measurements (those who have been in Guinness World Records, for example), but most are essentially part of the promotional brand. The question that has not been answered, to my satisfaction anyway, is: what is the encyclopaedic value of bust sizes anyway? Guy (Help!) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy is saying all these magazines exaggerate as if it's a well-know and indisputable fact. He's making this unsupported, unsourced statement in support of the idea that other information should be removed because it isn't sufficiently sourced. Does the irony of this (and the reason for my unusual action of editing another's comment) really escape some folks? -- Sean Martin (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

::Nope, I caught it. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hence my note it's only escaping "some" folks (who still seem to miss it). -- Sean Martin (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean, you are of course free to address or refer to your fellow editors as "folks". But whenever I hear the word, I'm reminded of the Yalie and dude rancher G W Bush doing his "compassionate conservatism" schtick. Am I unusual here?

JzG is here writing on a talk page, not writing in an article. He can say something moderately outrageous first and fish for evidence for it later. By all means expect him to come up with evidence, but don't stick little warnings within his prose.

Two questions for you. First, why do you suppose that these measurements are accurate? (As for me, I make no simple supposition. Rather, I suppose that either they're accurate or they idealize.)

Secondly, we know that Vickie Lynn Something-other-than-Smith first appeared in Playboy as "Vickie Smith" and later as "Anna Nicole Smith". What reason do we have to suppose that Playboy is greatly more scrupulous with numbers than with names? -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, nothing intended on my end by use of "folks". It's a casual form of address that I've seen used frequently by others and have found convenient. At work whenever I address an email to more than one person I start with "Folks, ..." having found it a casual, generic greeting lacking in any political overtones. One which I've given more thought to for this paragraph than I've ever had to before.

I realize this is a talk page and not an article itself and of course don't expect the opinions expressed here to require any kind of footnote at all. I intended the tag I inserted as an effective (and slightly tounge-in-cheek, although I realize that is really hard to communicate) way of pointing out this discussion on sourcing was kinda ironic (best term I can come up with right now).

Do I suppose the measurements are accurate? Yes. Despite well phrased and well intentioned discussion of the merits of scientific papers which used data from the fact sheets I don't see that one can draw the conclusion that they are not. Nobody is going to look at a picture of a shapely woman and change their opinion based on the numbers in the fact sheet. "As a breast man, I've just looked at a dozen pages of her and wasn't particularly impressed, but now that I see it written that her measurements are 37D I guess I'll change my mind." doesn't seem likely to me. Nor worth Playboy's editors time. Might they be inaccurate? Sure. But most of the arguments given here for assuming they are seem verging on facts to fit the desired conclusion to me.

As for names, were "Vickie Smith" and "Anna Nicole Smith" not the names she was going by at the time she was listed with those names? If she was known as "Vickie" at the time she was listed as Vickie, and later as Anna when she as listed as Anna then it would seem to me that Playboy actually was being rather scrupulous with the names. -- Sean Martin (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would universities allow Playboy to be used as a source then in peer-reviewed papers as pointed out by Tabercil? Dismas|^(talk) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Several paragraphs above, I have already addressed this question. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, should we not take the word of Variety magazine or the New York Times if they write an article about Clark Gable or John Wayne because they use their stage names in the article? Neither of those people used their birth/legal/given names as their name on screen. And the list isn't limited to just those two. There are hundreds of people who go by various names at different points in their carreer. For another example of this, see The Spice Girls or Jordan (Katie Price) or Nikki Ziering (another playboy playmate). Dismas|^(talk) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that the name "Smith" was invented specifically for, or perhaps even by, Playboy. Gable, Wayne, Cary Grant, etc., were, I think, not names invented specifically for (or by) the NYT. Anyway, the question isn't about the veracity of what we read about either the film stars of yesteryear or C-list slebs of the nineties, but instead about what's written up by or for this part of Playboy. We read above that Playboy is a reputable, established publication, and I'll certainly agree that it has published some first-rate material (e.g. short stories by Nabokov). But I don't think the reputability has much to do with its traditional coverage (or uncoverage) of flesh. Or are there some independent studies of its metrological standards? -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

inclusion

I still believe that playboy is not a reliable source, and measurements are not encyclopedic. However, I'm not going to hold up our work and take everyones time on this one issue. The measurements are not negative, nor are they unsourced, so to speak. Unless the subject has objected to the measurements, I won't specifically object to its inclusion in a particular article. At a proper time, I may try to discuss the source somewhere else, somewhere more centralized. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. -- Sean Martin (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"...and measurements are not encyclopedic"

YAY! You finally made the challenge to the information that I was hoping you eventually would bring to the table! THAT particular argument, I have no problem with. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of one fire and into another... <G> The standard on this topic (personal measurements as part of the infobox) seems to be all over the place on Wikipedia: Playmates and porn stars routinely have it in their infobox (go figure... different info boxes for these two groups). Hockey players and football players have them as part of the template but whether it's used seems to be hit and miss (e.g. Tony Mandarich and Terry Bradshaw don't have it; Eli Manning does). Actors used to have it but it was removed (see here). Models have it. I do agree with Nonvocal Scream in that this discussion should be done in a more centralized location as the implications of that debate look to be wide-ranging - maybe Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Until then are there any objections left from the peanut gallery to my restoring the measurements, using the Playboy website as a cite for them? Tabercil (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Last call for objections... Tabercil (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections heard so I'll add the measurements. Tabercil (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the measurements, because two or three people above do not count as consensus, particularly when other contributors expressed concern about these measurements above, just three days ago. Moreover, protected pages are not supposed to be edited by those involved in an editing dispute without overwhelming consensus to do so, and I don't believe such consensus exists.

Personally, I find the measurements unencyclopedic, unverifiable (porn mags have been known to over-emphasize the measurements), and not worth having in this article. Other thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... I honestly thought with NonVocal's withdrawal of his objection that we did have consensus... and I think my opinions on the topic are clear: they are worth having in the article. Tabercil (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This should really be discussed elsewhere since the implications would affect all Playmate articles. Dismas|^(talk) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim of direct descent from President Adams

{{editprotected}}

Can we have this removed until there is a verifiable source provided? I haven't seen anything to support this, and to me, claims of a direct relation to a US president should bear a fair standard of proof. The citation currently provided is of a Google-cached four-line "page6.com" stub, and doesn't seem to be enough to support the assertion. If it is true, and someone can cite a valid, independent, reputable source, it certainly does bear inclusion. Wandering canadian (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It does? I think it's stunningly trivial. (Unless, of course, the US is considering reinstatement of a monarchy -- and with the Kennedy and Bush dynasties, perhaps it is indeed doing so.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I request removal of this claim. Its significance aside, its single source is the gossip page of a tabloid. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

:I request that it remain. Geneology is an interesting subject to many, especially when it is of a (partial)black person in relation to a white President. Also, we do have a source for it, Ms. Adams' biography on her own site. Since she's bothered to put this in her own site's biography, it would seem that the info came from her. Dismas|^(talk) 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Dismas|^(talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So if somebody claims she's descended from a Prez, en:WP believes that she's descended from a Prez? I don't think so, and more importantly neither does a policy page [or my reading thereof]. Quote: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves [sic; presumably means "their authors"], so long as: 1 the material used is relevant to their notability; 2 it is not contentious; 3 it is not unduly self-serving; 4 it does not involve claims about third parties; [...] Whether or not this involves a claim about third parties (Prez Adams and unspecified descendants), it's contentious and at least moderately self-serving. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that, when properly sourced, the fact should be restored. It is not irrelevant and may be interesting to some (although as you point out, it would be more important if the presidency were hereditary); if it is important enough for reliable sources to comment on it, it is important enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Happy‑melon 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Italian investment banker"

{{editprotected}}

We read: Shortly after her centerfold in Playboy, Adams met and married an Italian investment banker, who she later divorced.

Is there any independent source for this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I request removal of this unsourced claim. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done by JzG. Happy‑melon 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I found these sources via a photo image of the articles:

According to an interview with Stephanie Adams on pg. 342 of The Playboy Book (published in early 1996): Miss November 1992 Stephanie Adams "I got married a couple of years ago," says Stephanie (in her centerfold shot, right, and today, inset). "My husband, who's Italian, does a lot of European investment banking, and he's about to start his own company in New York." The couple has an active social life in Manhattan and Florida and Stephanie is still modeling for swimsuit and lingerie catalogs..."

New York Post - "Page Six" By Richard Johnson - Tuesday, November 5, 1996 (Photo: Stephanie -- Fight For Me) Armed forces veterans finally have the firm, bountiful, and well-rounded support they deserve - Playboy's Miss November 1992, Stephanie Adams. The patriotic pin-up - and five decades worth of her scantily-clad compatriots splashed in "The Playmate Book" - are tossing a benefit bash called Operation Playmate: A Salute to America's Veterans Nov. 11 at the Motown Cafe. The book launch party raises money for New York-based veterans groups - and gives Adams a chance to inform her drooling fans that she's divorcing her Italian investment banker husband, who must be rich. Her lawyer is Raoul Lionel Felder.

Daily News - Monday, December 2, 1996 HOT COPY By A.J. Benza Free Bunnies The only thing we like better than Playboy playmates on the run from their former husbands, fiances and boyfriends is when they're running straight at us. Either way, we're always thrilled to see them throw off the shackles of commitment. It's better for the sake of fantasy. It looks as though Stephanie Adams, a 1992 centerfold, is officially single again. We reached her the day before Thanksgiving as she headed over to see lawyer Raoul Felder, at $450 an hour. "I'm late, so I can't talk too long, but I'm going to pick up half my settlement today," she told us. Stephanie, a mix of African-American, Cherokee, Sicilian and West Indian, was married to an NYC investment banker for two years before they separated last March. "It's always nice that the holidays are here and I can have some security now," she said. You know we feel more secure already.

Mentioning of ex-husband in an interview: Stephanie Adams - Lesbian Celebrities

And don't forget her biography, in which it is clearly acknowledged: Biography: Stephanie Adams

66.108.146.133 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, five "sources". The Playboy book merely quotes Adams, the clublez.com one (which I didn't bother to look at) is billed as an interview and thus presumably quotes her. There are two tabloid mentions, and Adams writes it up herself. This is pretty feeble stuff. Why does none of these specify the man's name? -- Hoary (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does none of these specify the man's name? Maybe because 66.108.146.133 (along with 66.108.146.77, 66.108.4.133, 72.89.117.239, 72.89.109.165, 69.203.12.124, 69.204.224.140 and all the rest of the single use accounts used to push various unsourced info) just don't believe in actually using names? I'm just guessing. -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the "investment guy" does not attribute to the subject's notability, it is irrelevant to the article and should not be included. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions and a proposition for Nonvocalscream

In this edit, Ladysekhmet (who much earlier had contributed this extraordinary edit) removed a fair number of bytes, with the edit comment Content added was highly defamatory, does not have anything substantial to do with the subject of the article, and has again been removed. Reverted to previous edit. Refer to discussion page.

The content "added" and removed by Ladysekhmet was a single sentence -- In 2004, Adams taught a course at the Learning Annex entitled "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?" -- and two links.

I have five questions for Nonvocalscream. The first three:

1. Aside from any concern about the credibility or significance of this information, is this sentence defamatory, or is the attachment of either of those links defamatory?
2. Aside from any concern about defamation or significance, does this pair of links give insufficient evidence for a claim that Adams taught such a course?
3. Aside from any concern about defamation or evidence, is this episode noteworthy?

In the edit immediately following this, Nonvocalscream removed other material (and reverted to an earlier version of his/hers), with the comment no, you need sourcing.

Of course there is no reason to assume that Nonvocalscream is happy with the result. He/she may be well aware that there's more work to be done on it. Still, I'd like to ask Nonvocalscream about two claims that the article makes in its current form.

1. Adams met and married an Italian investment banker, who she later divorced

No source for this is specified.

2. A few years later, the New York Post named her one of the "50 most eligible babes in NY" in 1998

This has a link to the Post. The link is dead, and some sleuthing (see earlier section in this talk page) shows that the article does indeed exist but represents the opinion not of the tabloid as a whole but instead of one columnist and his chums within its gossip section. Googling suggests that nobody except Wikipedia and its commercial scrapes and Adams (not one single member of the 49 other babes, and no fansite of any of those 49) thinks that the article now merits a mention on the web.

Fourth question for Nonvocalscream. Are these nuggets about a banker and being one of 50 babes sufficiently well sourced and notable for inclusion?

Last question for Nonvocalscream. Do you not sense a certain imbalance between (a) a single, tabloid source for Adams's presidential ancestry, no source for her marriage to or divorce from an unnamed banker, an (excellently sourced) paragraph about her 9% participation in one "cameo appearance" within one TV show, and somewhat reverent treatment of her 2% share of another laudatory tabloid article that the rest of the world seems to have forgotten; and (b) the removal -- for insufficient sourcing? I'm not sure -- of material about her teaching?

And so? To me, the inclusion of (a) and the like seems desperate. It's trivial, poorly sourced, or both. Now, I realize that Adams doesn't come off well from the single published report of the class on how to snag rich men. I have no particular desire to publicize the latter. However, if the article is to scrabble around for trivia and dubiously sourced factoids, I'm sure the class for gold-diggers should stay. And if it's to go, then the other trivia and dubiously sourced factoids should go too. Actually I'd prefer the latter: cutting anything that's dubious or trivial. And this will mean removing quite a lot. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the learning annex, I can understand how the subject may consider this a little defamatory. Where I come from, seeking folks out for money is a bad characterization. So in this manner I would call it negative. I don't think the second source is good enough, and I could not load the first one. I don't think the second one lends much veracity. There has got to be a better source. That is, if folks really want to include it. That part absolutely would need strong sourcing. Because it goes to her character. I honestly don't think it is even noteworthy.

I would not object if the article were stripped of things that are trivial and dubious. If there is no source about the banker, and it is contentious, remove it. Or place a citation needed on it for a few days. I think that would be a good idea.

I also think the claim of John Adams should go. I think we agree here. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams is a Descendant of John Adams AND John Quincy Adams

Stephanie Adams is a Descendant of John Adams AND John Quincy Adams and besides Playboy magazines, it is mentioned in various articles:

Black History Month Specials UKBlackOut.com (25 June 2005)

A queer Playmate NY Blade (12 September 2003)

NYC Characters: Stephanie Adams Village Voice (2004)

As well as the article in the November 1992 issue of Playboy:

IF THEY COULD SEE HER NOW -- MISS NOVEMBER, A DESCENDANT OF THAT ADAMS FAMILY, HAS BIG PLANS "I had a teacher who once told me 'C plus B equals A.' Meaning: 'If you conceive and believe, you will achieve.'" Meet Stephanie Adams of Jersey City, New Jersey, superachiever -- not to mention fashion model, artist, clothing designer and, of particular note this election month, a relative of the second and sixth presidents of the United States. "Yup, I'm blood-related to John and John Quincy Adams," Stephanie says with a shrug, quickly adding that her aunt Bootsy has the paperwork to back up the claim of presidential lineage. "Family lore has it that John had a couple of girlfriends and, well, you know..." Then she breaks into a laugh. But the celebrated ancestry of the Adams family is just one aspect of Stephanie's already remarkable life. At 22, she's headed for the big time and shows no sign of slowing down. "There are so many things I want to do," says the part-West Indian, part-Irish, part-Cherokee, completely gorgeous model. "I want to be on the cover of every magazine -- the female equivalent of Michael Jackson. This is where I belong." When Stephanie was small, her folks were always on the road -- Dad is in public relations for Harrah's casinos -- so she was raised by her aunts Pearl and Joyce, both former models, in Orange, New Jersey. It was the aunts who gave her the modeling bug. "Joyce was the Wella hair girl in the Sixties," says Stephanie. "I've posed in front of the camera since I was in diapers." Stephanie attended Catholic school from kindergarten through high school, dabbling mostly in art (the nuns actually put her sketches of nudes on display), clothing design (her fantasy label: Einahpets -- or Stephanie spelled backward) and interior design. "When I was eight, my reading material was "House Beautiful," "Architectural Digest" and "Vogue." I decorated my dollhouses and crocheted blankets for my dolls. I took it all very seriously." By the time she reached the tenth grade, Stephanie hit new heights -- five foot eight, to be exact -- and that's when she decided to become a model. "I was sixteen and I realized that I really could do it." Charm school was the first order of business. Stephanie took classes in everything from speech to make-up to behavior. That year, she booked her first gig, the video for George Benson's "Masquerade." "I played the love interest of a Mafia guy who winds up getting killed," she recalls. Next, it was off to college at nearby Fairleigh Dickinson University, where Stephanie landed degrees in business management and marketing "so I could market myself as a model and manage the money I made." After graduation, the jobs began to roll in: a stint on "The Cosby Show" ("I danced at one of Theo Huxtable's parties"), a string of rap videos on MTV and ads for Sprite and Clairol. Her newfound success also brought her into contact with some of New York's rich and famous, including Donald Trump ("He approached me at a loft party and began with, 'You look familiar...'"), Eddie Murphy ("My girlfriends and I met him at the China Club and we all went back to his house in Jersey. He was a perfect gentleman"), New York Mets outfielder Daryl Boston ("We've always been buddies") and Dolph Lundgren ("We met at Grace Jones's birthday party"). Last spring, Stephanie wandered into Playboy's Chicago offices on a lingerie photo assignment. Our photographer took one look at her and whisked her off to meet Senior Photo Editor Michael Ann Sullivan. Within two weeks, John Adams' great-great-etc.-granddaughter became a Playmate. In other words, C plus B equals A -- or, in this case, A-plus.

And other sources you can look up independently in the newspaper archives:

Daily News Article By Richard Johnson Wednesday, October 14, 1992 Playmates, Spin-doctors for Clinton John Quincy Adams -- What would sixth Prez make of Steph? It seems just about hopeless for President Bush, what with all the important opinion-makers jumping on the Clinton-Gore bandwagon. The latest endorsement for the Democrats: Playboy's Miss November, Stephanie Adams, 22, who claims to be a direct descendant of the second and sixth Presidents of the U.S. Before you get to the centerfold (unmarred by staples these days), the 34C-23 1/2-34 beauty says she'll save herself for Bill Clinton on Election Day. "I like him," Adams said. "He's intelligent and he has charisma, both qualities important to leadership." Her turn-ons? "Big cats, fast cars, Nintendo, kisses and music."

New York Post "Page Six" By Richard Johnson Saturday, January 17, 2004 SAPPHIC SISTER STEPHANIE Adams, Miss November in 1992, is out of the closet and proud to identify herself as Playboy's first-ever lesbian Playmate. The dusky descendent of President John Adams planned to attend the 15th anniversary of the "Gloss" party on East Houston Street last night accompanied by a few of her good friends who are lesbian performers here and in San Francisco. Stephanie, who has written seven books on spiritual awareness, broke up with her lover several months ago and is now playing the field. What a fertile pasture it is.

India Times - World: The United States Playboy Gets Lesbian Mate (Photo: Stephanie Adams) WASHINGTON: Stephanie Adams, Miss November in 1992, is out of the closet and proud to identify herself as Playboy 's first-ever lesbian playmate. According to a report in New York Post, the dusky descendent of president John Adams...has written seven books on spiritual awareness...

Hindustantimes.com Lesbian Playmate Has White House Connection (Photo: Stephanie Adams) STEPHANIE Adams, Miss November in 1992, is out of the closet and proud to identify herself as Playboy's first-ever lesbian Playmate. The dusky descendent of President John Adams...has written seven books on spiritual awareness...

As well as the caches of the NY Post:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:8Ipm9yqJXcsJ:page6.com/celebrities/Stephanie%2BAdams%3Fd%3D20030827+stephanie+adams+john+adams+new+york+post&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:GszXYjCRankJ:page6.com/celebrities/Stephanie%2BAdams+stephanie+adams+john+adams+new+york+post&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Remember, the breaking news mentioning her being a descendant of John Adams was back when she posed for Playboy in November 1992, so it will only be in a few articles now because it's from some time ago. However, it still remains online if you really look for it.

I could go on and on, but there are so many sources here already. 72.89.109.165 (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• This post was made by block evading. I have however restored it. I think this (the sources) can be discussed. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

These sources seem to be echoing back a claim made by Stephanie Adams without making any attempt to verify it. They are saying, 'According to Adams herself, she is a descendant of the president.' Adams says she has an Aunt Bootsy 'who has the paperwork to back up the claim to presidential lineage.' Which of the above sources interviewed Aunt Bootsy or examined her paperwork? 'Family lore' which says that John Adams had girlfriends is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Learning Annex course revisited

We've already encountered Adams's course for the Learning Annex. At least one SPA has made the peculiar claim that mere mention of this is libelous. Mention of it was pulled from the article, because the only evidence for it was hints in the website of the Learning Annex and a single longish review, in a free paper.

However, there's at least one other review: "For the Love of Money", by "N.H." (which the context suggests is Noelle Hancock), within "Live and Uncensored: It's Dave", in the NY Observer. -- Hoary (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)