Talk:Kim Kardashian/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sex tape in the introduction?

Does anyone else feel like this line should be moved somewhere else? "received wider notice after a 2003 sex tape with her former boyfriend Ray J was leaked in 2007." I am not saying that it shouldn't be on her article, but in the introduction? There are children out there glorifying her, probably doing school projects on her and what not, and I just feel that it's a little out there. I mean we all know Kim is an attention seeker, but I feel that line is a very overblown for an introduction, wouldn't you agree? Why not place it in the career or personal life section? PaulG524 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

PaulG524, the sex tape did significantly contribute to her fame, and there are reliable sources that note this. It's also a matter covered lower in the article (in the first section of the article). So per WP:Lead, mention of it should be in the lead. We don't write our introductions with children in mind. And there are many Wikipedia articles that are not suitable for children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This 2017 "The Kardashian Decade: How a Sex Tape Led to a Billion-Dollar Brand" source, from The Hollywood Reporter, is one reliable source that discusses the sex tape aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I am aware that there are many articles not suitible for children. I am also aware that many children look up to her and sadly see her as an influence. I am not saying that it shouldn't be included, but there are plenty of celebrities out there who got famous off of sex tapes and it is not included in their introductions. PaulG524 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

PaulG524, if a celebrity became famous via a sex tape, it should be mentioned in the lead. Not all of our Wikipedia articles have a proper or good lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The sex tape reference should be in the introduction, the very first paragraph I would add. For the reference, see the scholarly research article "15 Minutes of Shame" by Shelly Rosenfeld on celebrity sex tapes, published in UCLA Entertainment Law Review in 2013. Rosenfeld concludes that "Kim Kardashian’s tape not only launched her career but also reportedly generated millions of dollars for her." This view has been explicity accepted by Kim Kardashian herself in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. When Oprah asked her, "Would you be where you are had there not been a sex tape?," Kim replied: "You know, I think that’s how I was definitely introduced to the world." Hence, if nothing else, the fact that Kim Kardashian acknowledes her "introduction" via porn should be treated as a fact and stated. It is important to remember that self-censorshi view is not taken by as the Wikipedia guideline states: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." ^mitsein 16:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Repetition of the Surname After Occupation (What Her Professions Are)

I think having her last name after her professions of a model and a TV personality is boring and redundant. VERY much so.

It should be "She first gained attention in 2003 after a being on a tape..." That would be much better.

Many celebrities specifically the ones who are semi-protected and famous enough have their last names following the occupations they have.

Someone has to respond back with this query.

Love,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

what does this even mean 71.198.104.218 (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me 71. That means her last name shouldn't be repeated after her occupation/professions. Kendall has that too after hers, but Caitlyn's should be left alone. Remember not all of them will. Kylie Kourtney and Khloe would rather have that happen to them. Another response is necessary.

Good night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Focus on Makeup and future contribution

Dear Community,

I have re-uploaded the "Focus on Makeup" section after fixing the mistakes pointed out so helpfully by some of the users. I have noticed that people are posting things all over the place about it, so could it be possible if people are still not happy that they post it on my talk page? Furthermore, I changed the accidental second person and shortened it. I also took out where to buy things like for example the kids fashion line in order to make it less promotional and the part with her feuds and just stated that it reignited rumors of a feud which I think is fine to state. My contribution now is also a little shorter and less detailed. Is it now fine?

In the Future, I would like to add some things to Kim Kardashian Early Life which has previously been undone but I might refine it. If anyone wants to give me some feedback on it already than look at it in the viewing history and contact me. I will also want to add a section on Kim Kardashians Sex Tape which I think should have its own section in the article. Maybe a subsection called controversies where I could then also include other legal problems that she has faced. What do you guys think?

Kind Regards,

--Liselanora (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Same issues. Doesn't look like you changed much of anything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As promised, I took some time to look into this a little deeper. Liselanora, I'm going to try to explain to you what the problems are, and it may sound a bit critical of you, but try to remember this is constructive criticism in the hopes it will help you in future contributions, so you can eliminate these problems and have a much better time here.

The first thing to understand is that this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, book, autobiography, exposé, etc... What that means is that the purpose of this article --it's only purpose-- is to define the subject, that is, the "thing" which this article is about. (In this case, the thing is a person.) What makes an encyclopedia different from a textbook is that we don't go into all the boring little details about the subject; we try to define it in the most precise yet concise way possible. In other words, we try to look past all the trivial details and see the big picture, the nitty-gritty, and then summarize that in as few words as possible. An encyclopedia is where someone goes to get the gist of it, not every single detail. People who want to get that in depth can go look up the sources for further reading.

As an example, I'll use this make-up addition that you want to add. For example, you start off with, "In June 2017, she launched KKW Beauty named after herself, Kim Kardashian West, with Creme Contours and Highlight Kits making an estimated 14.5 million dollars on the launch day." This sentence is full of details that are just not found in an encyclopedia. It tells me all about her products, but almost nothing about her. Details like how much money this made are completely unimportant (eg: trivia). Her name is listed at the top of the article, so there is no need to say it again. (Readers are generally not stupid, and feel condescended to if you tell them things they already know.)

Then we have, "Through KKW Beauty she had several collaborations including one with her younger sister, Kylie Jenner, named KKW X Kylie and also one with her long time make up artist called KKW X Mario." Again, this tells me something about her products and those of other people, but nothing about her. It's full of trivial information and reads like an advertisement. It would be like going to the General Electric article and finding a timeline saying, 'They released this model lightbulb on this date, and that brand lightbulb on that date, and this new LED lightbulb on such-and-such a date, which netted them a hundred-million dollars.' That's the type of info we need if we want to decide what products to buy from them, or if we should invest in their stocks, but not what we need to define the subject.

The rest of the section reads like that, which is why I say it sounds way too promotional. What I mean is that it is all about the stuff she's selling, yet tells me nothing about her. In other words, it reads like a sales brochure not an article. Remember, an encyclopedia biography is about defining a person's life and career in the simplest, most-concise way possible --as a summary-- meaning what we really to see is the the forest, not each individual tree. See for example, Basic fighter maneuvers, an article of which I am fairly proud to have written. It doesn't tell me all about the planes, the technology, or the pilots, just focuses on the nitty-gritty of maneuvering a fighter plane.

The same with dealing with sex-tapes or other controversial issues. This information needs to be a mere summary, and put into context and balance with the rest of the article. Thus, controversy sections and similar sections can off-balance the article by putting too much weight (giving too much size and space, or localizing all the "bad" stuff in one spot) on one area, so that it is no longer in balance with all the "good" stuff, and visa-versa. You can imagine an article to be like a boat. If you put all the weight on one end or another, it will tip over and sink.

In short, an encyclopedia is written in a very formal style, whose only purpose is to answer the reader's question, "what is this thing?", as quickly and efficiently as possible. It should not read like a gossip column, an opinion/editorial column, nor a sales brochure. It's not easy to learn how to do, and even harder when working on a subject you are passionate about. My suggestion is that you take some time away from here, and try working on some articles which you don't really care about, so you can look at how to edit them and improve them objectively, because our passions have a tendency to cloud our judgments. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing her early life

Kardashian was born on October 21, 1980 in Los Angeles, California, the daughter of Robert, a famous Hollywood attorney and owner of Movie Tunes, Inc., and Kris (née Houghton), who used to be a flight attendant before they met and then became a close friend of Nicole Brown Simpson. She has an older sister, Kourtney, a younger sister, Khloé, and a younger brother, Rob. Their mother is of Dutch, English, Irish, and Scottish ancestry, while their father was a third-generation Armenian-American. After their parents divorced in 1991, her mother married again that year, to Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner),^[A] the 1976 Summer Olympics decathlon winner. Through their marriage, Kardashian gained step-brothers Burton "Burt", Brandon, and Brody; step-sister Casey; and half-sisters Kendall and Kylie Jenner.

She attended Marymount High School, a Roman Catholic all-girls school in Los Angeles, with Paris Hilton, heiress to the Hilton fortune, and Nicole Richie, daughter of Lionel Richie. As a child they attended Sunday Church on a regular basis and were generally speaking religious. In 1994, her father represented football player O. J. Simpson during his murder trial. Simpson is Kardashian's godfather. In 2000, she married Damon Thomas at 20 years old, who was a music producer and their marriage ended after 4 years. After the marriage she had a few high profile romances including Nick Lachey, a singer, and Reggie Bush, a former American Football running back. Kardashian's father died in 2003 of cancer. In her 20s, Kardashian was the close friend and stylist of socialite Paris Hilton, through whom she first garnered media attention.

This is what I would add. Who has suggestions for changes? Is there something wrong with it? If yes please elaborate. Liselanora (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Liselanora, there are also issues with this material. For example, "He was also supposedly abusive towards her according to court proceeding from 2003, but these claims have not been proven." Considering they were never proven, why are you including them? Actually read WP:BLP. Also read MOS:ALLEGED for "supposedly." In addition to Zaereth told you above, see WP:DIARY as well. Either way, the marriage material is already in the "Marriages" subsection of the "Personal life" section. That section states, "In 2000, 19-year-old Kardashian eloped with music producer Damon Thomas. Thomas filed for divorce in 2003. Kardashian later blamed their separation on physical and emotional abuse on his part, and said she was high on ecstasy during the ceremony." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

______

References

Repeated inclusion of the "Focus on Makeup (2017–present)" section

As seen here, here, here and here (for examples), Liselanora has repeatedly added material that has been objected to. Liselanora has already been pointed to WP:BLP and WP:Edit warring. Another thing that Liselanora should become familiar with is WP:ONUS. Liselanora has not attempted to take the time to discuss this disputed content. The problems with Liselanora's content is that it contains material about supposed feuds, rumors, includes some trivial material, and includes some poor sourcing. Yes, it make sense to include some makeup and fashion material in the article, but it should not be overly detailed and it should be supported by WP:Reliable sources only. A "Fashion ventures" section was in the article, but it was recently removed. And we can see that it contained some poor sources.

I'll take this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard since Liselanora keeps adding the disputed content and this needs to be sorted out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Liselanora, stop adding this material. See what was stated by Zaereth in the #Focus on Makeup and future contribution section below. Even when you "clean up" the text, there are still problems. Vistadan, are you still watching this matter? Do you now agree with Liselanora's addition? Mymis, Ivanvector and FlightTime, are you still watching this article? Any thoughts on this particular matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22 Reborn, I'm still following this situation and I agree with you and Zaereth. Some of the points Zaereth brought up are point we have already expressed to Liselanora, so at this point it seems that Liselanora is ignoring our comments and continuing to add the bad material. As you said in the #Changing her early life section, I too would ask that Liselanora reads through WP:BLP, MOS:ALLEGED and WP:DIARY. Vistadan 11:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, regarding this, I see that it is about what is stated in the #Changing her early life section. But there are problems with it as well, and some of what Zaereth stated relate to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Yes, this page is still on my watchlist, but I do not know the subject matter well enough to argue any point, just watching changes. Sorry, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime, I don't think a person has to be very familiar with Kim Kardashian to recognize inappropriate content added to the article about her. You are good at recognizing material that should be reverted. Anyway, glad that you are watching the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner Deadname

Is there a reason we need to use Caitlyn Jenner's deadname in this article? It's listed twice, and I think we can just delete it? It's listed in her own entry, so if anyone clicks through, they'll see it, and I don't think it adds anything to this article to deadname her... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsiffert (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We should include that Kim Kardashian gets famous for doing nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFE1:F939:F580:82AA:8106:5F36 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Liselanora, regarding this, coming back months later, after this, this, and this discussion, and editing the same way is a problem. Your editing hasn't improved since then. And why would it when you are still a newbie and haven't edited Wikipedia in months? Well, except for your sporadic additions. Things like WP:DIARY still apply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

This article states that Kim Kardashian is married to "rapper" Kanye West. To describe Kanye West as only a rapper is inaccurate and insulting. "Rapper" should be replaced with "artist" instead.

Kanye West's own Wikipedia article states that he is "an American rapper, singer, songwriter, record producer, entrepreneur, and fashion designer." 128.59.26.54 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done I take it there's an implicit consensus since noone has objected to the proposal. --Trialpears (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted because he is primarily known as a rapper. "Artist" is vague. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

I think there should be a controversies section. Kylie has one so why not Kim.

-the Kimono controversy

-Bo Derek braids controversy

-Aaliyah costume

--Candy bling1 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Candy bling1, no. See WP:Criticism for why. Also see Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 34#Request for comments on restructuring the article. See WP:DIARY as well. There is no need for a Controversies section in this article. Yes, there is a Controversies section in the Kanye West article, but he is very a controversial figure. WP:Reliable sources comment on it; it's a part of his legacy. Kim Kardashian is not on the same controversy level. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That's wildly debateable to say that she is not on the same controversy level. I cited a NYT artcile titled "Kim Kardashian West and the Kimono Controversy", the mayor of japan wrote her a letter! I mean come on --Candy bling1 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC) At the very least I ask that someone re-name the "product range" section because that title doesn't really make sense if it only elaborates on one specific product and basically recounts the controversy surrounding it. --Candy bling1 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Candy bling1, you didn't look at the links to WP:Criticism, Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 34#Request for comments on restructuring the article and WP:DIARY, did you? Wildly debatable? It's not. To repeat, WP:Reliable sources comment on Kanye West being a controversial figure; it's a part of his legacy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I did look at the links which is why I then said "At the very least I ask that someone re-name the "product range" section because that title doesn't really make sense if it only elaborates on one specific product and basically recounts the controversy surrounding it." --Candy bling1 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The section is still about "product range." That it covers criticism doesn't mean that "criticism" or "controversy" needs to be in the heading. But, as a compromise, we could go with "Product range criticism" or "Reception to product range." Given the criticism over the word Kimono, it's probably best it's not used in the heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"Reception to product range" sounds great to me. --Candy bling1 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

___

References

Attending Law School

Should we add content about Kim's home-studying law that prepares for her career as a lawer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozoedit (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Kim Kardashian → Kim Kardashian West – Wikipedia almost universally refers to her with as "Kim Kardashian West" and even this article for the most part refers to her by the surname "West." 73.82.167.45 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose move and snowclose. Her common name is quite clearly Kim Kardashian. (In addition, references to her as "West" should be reverted to "Kardashian", for that reason.) O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move While she is arguably mainly referred to as "Kim Kardashian West" in the media, she became notable with the name "Kim Kardashian". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Recent news sources primarily refer to her as "Kim Kardashian", so I don't think WP:NAMECHANGES would apply in this case. PC78 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Still overwhelmingly her common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Same reason Buck Dharma is not under Donald Roeser and Slash is not under Saul Hudson. We use the name a person is most well-known for as the title, which may not always be the same as their legal name. And there are many, many people who know the name and have no idea she's even married because they don't keep up with celebrities. With her status I don't foresee this move ever taking place. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Her WP:Common name is obviously Kim Kardashian. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding things

I know that some of you disagree with my way of writing, but I think this Wikipedia page really lacks a lot of information. I mean there aren't enough mentions of her controversies and also her more recent activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liselanora (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lisalanora, it's not that we object to your way of writing so much, but it's the that the types of changes you want are usually not encyclopedic. No one here trying to hurt your feelings, but it's important that you take the criticism constructively, because our comments are designed to help you understand.

I currently don't see a problem with your additions, but I really don't know anything about the subject, except that I saw a photo of her without make-up once and thought, damn, there's actually a really pretty face under all that. However, I am no fan of controversy sections, as it creates undue weight for these things by singling them out and walling them off in their own section. Plus those sections become a magnet for any negative information ever printed about the subject. Better is to work them into the txt within their proper timeline. Others who are more familiar with the subject may see problems with your recent additions, though, and you should listen to them and take their advice.

You are what we call a single purpose account. This is not always a bad thing, but more often than not it raises some big, red flags. At first I thought you may just be young, but the more I saw; the more I noticed your additions read like those of a public relations/marketing representative, so you should probably take a look at WP:Conflict of interest. Your additions often conflict with the goals of an encyclopedia in that they tend to be way too promotional (meaning it reads like a sales brochure) or too much like publicity. So I'd be careful because due to all of the red flags you keep sending, there are a lot of eyes watching what you do here, and sooner or later it will get you into trouble. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. See #Controversies above; I'm not repeating myself on that in this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I almost reverted myself, but just didn't see anything overtly promotional, so I thought I'd leave it to people more familiar with the subject. If this persists, I think it might be time to take it to COIN. Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Puzzled how they calculated net worth

"As of July 2018, Kardashian is worth US$350 million.[140] Combined with husband Kanye West's net worth of $1.3 billion,[141] their total household net worth is an estimated $510 million,"

Wouldn't the total be closer to $1.65 billion? Or would that number be considered Original Research? For that matter, is the $510 figure Original Research?

Crowless (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Change "West" into "Kardashian"?

I propose we change the named references to the subject into "Kardashian" or "Kim Kardashian" that are the most common names she has been known with as the current "West" seems strange. I thought it would be better to discuss this here before making any change just to avoid edit warring (as this is definitely not my intention). I saw a similar suggestion in October's discussion on article name change. What do you think? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Normally I'd say go with the legal surname in the article. Always use the full legal name for the opening sentence, and the surname throughout. There are exceptions to this, however, such as when the maiden name is just so much more well-known or where it may cause confusion. (For example, in the moose article we avoid calling the American elk by that name, but instead use the American Native name (wapiti), because "elk" is the European word for moose. Or in the Basic fighter maneuvers article we avoid using the word "plane" or "airplane" because they're easily confused with "geometric plane".) I could see where many people might not recognize her by her surname (if I hadn't come here from BLPN I most certainly wouldn't know). I understand that is says it in the first sentence, but more often than not people won't read the entire article but rather the vast majority are just going to scan through until they find what they're looking for, so I could see how it could get confusing. Then her husband is also apparently a famous person and there's a need to distinguish between the two. On the other hand, using the legal last name just sounds much more professional, and I really don't know much more about the subject than what I've read here, so I'm on the fence. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Should definitely go with "Kardashian." Yes, we have WP:Surname. But her WP:Common name is "Kim Kardashian" and that is the title of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, those are actually two separate policies; one dealing with article content and the other with article titles, but I get your point. The rest of the "Names" section in MOS/Biographies seems to spell it all out when taken as a whole. "Kardashian" is definitely the most common name, if a quick google search means anything, and you can even equate it to a stagename. I try to look at this from the reader's perspective, and if I was just coming here, with no prior knowledge of the subject, to research info for some reason, "Kardashian" is the name I would be looking for. So count me in; you've tipped the scales. Per MOS:NAMES I say lets change it. Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

OK then, I will make the changes into a single edit action so that it can be reverted later in case a different consensus is made. Cheers Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I say she keeps the name as it is "Kim Kardashian west"because she is married so she should use her marital name or maybe she wants to keep both Katlego zondi kele (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

She is most often being referred to as "Kim Kardashian West". I am in support of changing the page name to this. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Move to "Kim Kardashian West"

Move this page to Kim Kardashian West — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavaPythonLutz (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Likely not. While we begin an article with a subject's full, legal name, the title of the article is usually the name by which they are most known or most widely recognized. See: WP:Names, which says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." For example, Buck Dharma, Slash, or Ozzy. Zaereth (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Shes almost always referred to as Kim Kardashian West though. Look at every Interview she does (Vogue 73 Interviews). It's only really the tabloid-ey articles that refer to her as Kim Kardashian, becuase it's quicker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavaPythonLutz (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for bringing this to the talk page instead of edit-warring. Much appreciated. The next step is to build consensus by convincing everyone else that your idea is the best route to go; which works best if you're prepared to listen to others and willing to compromise. Personally, I really know nothing about this subject, as I've never once "kept up" with it. I only have it on my watchlist for WP:Biographies of living persons reasons. Since you're apparently new here, I would strongly suggest reading that page, because, although it works in accordance with all other policies, it ultimately trumps all other policies.

That said, what we need here, especially for people like me, are sources to back up any claim you make. (For example, the previous war could have been avoided by simply citing your source at the start. I haven't looked at the source, but unless she legally changed it from Kimberly Noel... to Kim Kardashian... (for example, see Bob Dylan, who legally changed it from "Robert" to "Bob") we should really open with whatever her full name is.) Most of us have day jobs and aren't going to hunt for them up ourselves, so you increase your chances of success a hundred-fold by doing the legwork for us. To move the entire article to a new title, I'd suggest going out and finding all the sources you can that can back up that statement, and demonstrate how all the other sources are tabloidish. Keep in mind that how most people like me know her is from her television shows and appearances, which also count (maybe even more). I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am in support of changing to "Kim Kardashian West." Its the most common name used in the news. There is also another similar discussion to this above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertwikiguy (talk • contribs) 05:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Filmography- Where is MTV mention of fake reality show The Hills?

In Filmography section, ..needed? I'm looking for her involvement in an MTV show I believe it was called The Hills? Young people thought it was reality TV but it was clearly scripted and acted, and edited! I'm surprised it's not on this person's Wikipedia article, I think this show / TV series superseded keeping up with the Kardashians, and was in the late '90s, whereas Kim's first filmography entry is circa 2003! (See also my talk comment on Caitlyn Jenner/Bruce Jenner's Wikipedia article...) Thoughts? -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 20:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Aha seems really only Brody Jenner was on The Hills https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hills_(TV_series) my mistake.. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 20:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

Wealth

If her wealth is about $350 million and her husband's is $1.2 billion, how can their household be worth only $510 million? Something is wrong here.Bill (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Divorce??

Multiple news outlets such as Vanity Fair and Harper's Bazaar (1)(2) have circled around reports of their potential divorce. Anyways, is this enough coverage to add to the article ("Kim seperated from Kanye in 2021. / Kim divorced Kanye in 2021.) or should we wait for more? Thanks Redandvidya (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent infobox failures

The infobox section I was trying to modify and edit to up to date details is persistently failing even with repositioning the whole infobox. Please confirm the problem and fix the edit in the infobox, I have so far edited at least five times if not more to fix this problem. Hartma9616 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

2600:1700:60AB:98C0:ADFA:7339:F60F:E6DF (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

kim and kanye are getting divorced 2021

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In general though we try and avoid predicting future events, particularly those coming from tabloid rumours about a couple's break up; Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Volteer1 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Political party?

Highly doubt she is a Democrat as she worked with Trump see https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kim-kardashian-west-meet-trump-recently-commuted-prisoners/story?id=69386103 and https://www.wmagazine.com/story/kim-kardashian-prison-reform-trump-kushner/ says she is a friend of Ivanka Trump a registered Republcian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.10.148 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Divorce Is Official

Kardashian's filed for divorce (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/02/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-divorce), this is probably underway but the Relationships section should be adjusted accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialisthipster42 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to keep up-to-the-minute tabs on people's relationship statuses. This is not Facebook. This is not a gossip magazine or tabloid. We don't predict the future. When it is finalized, we'll report it, but until then, we can wait. A lot can happen between now and then, and we're not a crystal ball. We report only things of major significance that have happened, not what may or may not happen, or even what will happen. When the fruit is ripe, then we'll pick. Zaereth (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor’s Request on 27 Feb. ‘21

Like her two stepsisters they were not known to the public eye until 2007 as she remained unknown other than being a daughter of her late lawyer father Robert during most of her life. The home video was a major contributing factor to her so-called “career” as a famous person, released in March of that year. Change the year back since it is more recognizable. Besides the tape will turn 14 in no less than three weeks.

67.81.161.226 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: On Wikipedia, content is based on reliable sources, not original research and synthesis by editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

To just edit a more recent picture of Kimberly because as readers its sometimes annoying seeing a picture from years ago, or an unflattering picture of your favorites celebrities. Mngwetjana71 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We would need a more recent, more flattering recent picture that was also free of copyright to use. If you can provide that upload the image and request an edit again. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Kim kardsahian divorce not sept 2021 but 202

2001:8003:264B:F500:38A4:FC70:3C03:7D71 (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Filmography

In 2020, Kim Kardashian (Formerly,Kim Kardashian-West): The Justice Project, a documentary about her quest to help and free prisoners aired April 5 on the Oxygen channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetres karatz (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Her companies

Kim Kardashian, mom and business woman own many companies. Those have a lot of success in the whole world. Some of them are skims,this is a clothes brand. Another company owned by her is KKWbeauty, a makeup brand. Kim if you’re reading this post it on your Instagram, you’re the best!Mynameinhere (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)anonymous

Law degree?

I added Kardashian failed the baby bar twice and is currently pursuing a law degree, per the BBC Kardashian, who is studying for a law degree, aims to open her own law firm. She was seen saying: "I failed... I just have to not stress about it."[1] The other source I added expressly says she is reading the law,[2] as we have it in the rest of our article. I will remove this law degree addition for now, but the accuracy of this claim should be looked at. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

change name to Kim Kardashian instead of Kim Kardashian West Yeeessirrr (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in "Wealth" section

The section mentions that Kim is worth 350 million, Kanye is worth 1.3 billion, and then their combined worth is... 510 million. How is it possible that their combined worth is lower than the sum of their individual worths, and even lower than Kanye alone? It doesn't make that much sense to me. Not A Superhero (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Likely it has to do with some of their individual wealth being tied up in business ventures and other non-liquid assets that don't count jointly as marital property. I don't know that for sure, because I don't know all the legalities of it, but my guess would be something along those lines. Zaereth (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

While Zaereth's logic may be true, neither that total sum nor the statement that she and West are one of the "richest couples in entertainment" appear in the sources provided. For now, I've just noted that the Cosmopolitan article failed verification but I'll suggest that the article may be stronger if the two last sentences in that paragraph were removed. korbnep «talk» 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

Partners - (Kris Humphries M.2011 - D.2011) Lucelydx (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Listed under spouses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Kim Kardashian is currently dating Pete Davidson after separating from her ex-husband, Kanye West. Romijoss (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Skims

@Vistadan: I noticed that you turned my article on Skims back into a redirect. My draft article included references to profiles and detailed coverage in many notable sources (New York Times, Teen Vogue, Forbes, Vogue Business). I think this should qualify the company as notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies). If you disagree, can you please explain why? Thanks Juliettelm (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Juliettelm: This is not the proper venue to discuss your article. FWIW, I agree with Vistadan. Regardless of whether it could be sufficiently notable, at the moment it is simply not ready for main space. I suggest you keep working on your draft (not the one in your userspace), which, as of now, has not been accepted by any of the experienced reviewers at WP:AFC. The so-called reviewers in your userspace are not experienced enough to "approve" the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Juliettelm is a student in my WikiEdu class. I sent Juliettelm here because I did not realize there was a version that had been put into the Draft namespace over at Draft:Skims. The draft version looks like it was created by Vistadan without coordination with Juliettelm. This is probably a question for Vistadan but did she get a message to know to stop working on the version in her userspace? She has been doing all her work at User:Juliettelm/Skims and didn't seem to know when I talked with her today.

FWIW, the user namespace version includes references to profiles of the company in the NYT (x2, x3, x4), Forbes, Reuters and many others which pretty clearly suggest to me that the company satisfies both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. It is trivial to find substantial coverage of the company. Do you two really disagree or are you going off the text in Draft:Skims which does not have these? —mako๛ 04:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benjamin Mako Hill: @Juliettelm: I apologize for all the confusion. I created the Skims draft offline before publishing it at Draft:Skims after reading an Bloomberg article about the companies valuation. I was unaware a more in-depth version of the Skims article was being worked on at User:Juliettelm/Skims, so can I propose that the current Draft I created be moved to my userspace, and then move User:Juliettelm/Skims to Draft:Skims, or even to mainspace Skims? vistadan 11:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vistadan, Juliettelm, Robert McClenon, and Khascall: Aaaaaaaah! I am much less confused now! Thank your for explaining the situation Vistadan and I apologize for not being to figure this out on my own! If I don't hear any other objections in a couple days, I'll move Draft:Skims into your (i.e., Vistadan's) userspace and copy the content of User:Juliettelm/Skims into the mainspace (i.e., by turning the redirect at Skims back into an article). I can see that Vistadan has already made some edits and fixes to User:Juliettelm/Skims so it seems like everybody who has been working on this is moving their changes there. I think there are enough experienced eyes on this that we do not need to go through WP:AfC and it would be nice to not add to the backlog there. —mako๛ 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benjamin Mako Hill: I have moved Draft:Skims into my userspace, ready for the move of User:Juliettelm/Skims to Draft:Skims. Would it be better to Round-robin page move (or technical deletion) the current Skims redirect, and move Draft:Skims (User:Juliettelm/Skims) to Skims to preserve its history, rather then copying the article? vistadan 22:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. the article at Forbes appears to be a WP:FORBESCON article. Articles from Forbes contributors aren't reliable per FORBESCON. wizzito | say hello! 01:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vistadan: Sounds good and it seems there are no other objections at this point. I tagged the redirect with WP:G6. Thanks everybody for all your help on this! —mako๛ 01:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

Change Bruce Jenner to the correct name Caitlyn Jenner DominiInferni (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022

Change “Kourtney and Kim Take Miami” to “Kourtney and Khloé Take Miami” i.e. replace “Kim” with “Khloé” 38.73.250.236 (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Kourtney and Kim Take Miami seems to be correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Literacy?

"She had recently totaled her car..."

"Totaled"? Illiterate slang.

"... insisted that she be responsible for any expenses related to future damages going forward"

"Going forward"

Superfluous, and slang again.

Both "future" and "going forward" [sic]? Tautology and slang, again.

The level of illiteracy on a would-be encyclopaedia is staggering, even allowing for the article being about a publicly paraded human embodiment of slang. 109.153.81.238 (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. "Totaled" may have been an idiom from colloquial speech from fifty years ago, but I wouldn't call it slang. Like most language morphology, with time the term has entered formal speech. It originated with the insurance industry term "total loss", and today the dictionary definition is "to wreck completely", so it's a way of saying that in a single word, and anything that can reduce the number of words is a good thing in writing.

On the other hand, "going forward" is indeed fully idiomatic. Still not slang, but at first glance, to non-native speakers, it appears to be a prepositional phrase, implying a movement from now into the future. Idiomatically, however, it is a gerund being used as an adverb meaning, "Progressively. Incrementally. To be addressed without any specified date or action." It's easy to see how that would be confusing to non-native speakers, but idiomatically, us native speakers know it really means "we'll put it off until it's forgotten". Now, if that's a direct quote from the subject, then we should leave it as is. If not, then it is just superfluous and should just be removed as redundant.

That's what happens in an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Not everyone here is a professional writer, which is what copyediting is for. Now, since you know exactly where to find these things in the article, instead of complaining about it or insulting people, why not simply fix it yourself? It would have taken far less time and effort. Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I forgot this article is semi'ed. I went ahead and located the problem phrase so I could see it in context, and removed it as redundant. Zaereth (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

Kim kardashian socialite, media personality, business women AND LAWYER.

Passed her bar in 2022 Amberlainekyki (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead includes what she is notable for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

I don’t like that it says she recieved wider notice after her sex tape. That so demeaning to Kim 2601:204:8480:9700:6127:4AB7:DC6D:5288 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That is how sources describe it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Just a suggestion can we change the sex tape - Sentence to notorious for her famous home video. it'll be a better reflect on her kid and I really think as Humanity we should respect one other and especially the KIDS, your doing or not doing of it really reflects what kind of human You are. #YOURTHEBEST! 123.208.65.230 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. As an encyclopedia, we don't use euphemisms. They're too vague and colloquial. If someone dies, we simply say that. Not "taken from us" or "passed away". Same when it comes to sexual topics. We're not being crude about it, but very clinical. It was a sex video so we simply call it a sex video. Zaereth (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022

Someone rudely changed her name to Kartrashian, but I’m unable to edit and fix it? Respectfully, put her name as Kardashian.

Thanks. 174.102.169.142 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

I hope to edit so I can fix the errors in this page Noahsnames (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)