Talk:Kim Kardashian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page should be deleted

The article fails to explain why this person is notable. I don't think having a sex tape makes you notable, dating famous people does not make you notable and owning a store does not make you notable. Being on a reality tv show also does not make you notable. This article should only be kept if the creator or editors can explain in the article why she is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.24.251 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument goes something like: "She's notable because she's hot!" IOW, I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You could use that argument for almost any celebrity. She's notable because she's on TV all the time, like any other celebrity. You don't need a special talent to be on TV. I had no idea who she was, and now I do. So I guess she's notable. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Being the star of a reality TV show does make you notable. You may not like it but that's the way it is. Hondo77 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the question should be why being one of Paris Hilton's friends should make someone notable enough to have a tv show.

I understand why someone would watch a show like Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous, or MTV Cribs. But getting a show because your a trashy, yet cute, heiress... Come On. I guess that after baywatch got cancelled, they had to find some kind of mindless crap to fill in time slots.

I've got an idea for a new show that would cater to love of wealth and stupidity. Take a bunch of trashy bimbos in bikinis that operate a personal bank for Bill Gates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep The Photo

The Photo is fine. I spent 2 hours looking for it. I would be very upset if someone got rid of it. Thank You! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burrito813 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC). Burrito813

Why?

is this all it takes to be a person of note? be friends with a celebrity and have a sex tape? i knew Craig David at school and have a video of me with an ex girlfriend do i get a wikipedia page now? Kejoxen 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. And CD goes both ways anyways.74.195.3.199 04:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that she is definitely a person of note. She is getting national news attention (albeit mostly celebrity news). I came here looking for information after I read about her in the news so at least on that level I am glad that the article is here. Being the daughter of an O.J. attorney is noteable as well as the fact that there is a rather learge article on wikipedia regarding celebrity sex tapes. I definitely believe that this article needs to be cleaned up, but I think deletion would be premature, especially since she seems to be able to stay in the news. But that's just my opinion. Tinman8443 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.openentrance.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/kim-kardashian-and-ray-j.jpg

She has been in the news many times recently, she is a "celebrity" herself in that respect whereas you are not. Also, she has one or two businesses in the fashion area. She is of note and the article should not be deleted. (but it should be improved!) 66.254.246.198 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading an article about her, I had no idea who she was. I googled her and found the Wikipedia entry. It told me all that I needed to know about her background. If it was useful to me, it might be useful to others. Sure, it could be improved (how about a photo?) but why delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.190.164 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I guess you can say she is a nobody somebody ... Coolspot 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an article just on her sex tape would be more appropriate. Aside from the sex tape, there is nothing notible about her. She isn't really a celebrity (news coverage does not equal celebrity). Rather, she parties with them and all her media attention derives from her association with celebrity. She has done nothing of note. She should be a footnote in articles about others, but doesn't justify an article. 12.96.162.45 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is premature but to call her a person of note when the only reason is the sex tape would Americanise the place too much. These sex videos happen all the tıme and others don't get wikipedia-ed. Boils 11:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is unnecessary, however, listing her as an American Socialite is entirely incorrect. I believe that category needs to be preserved for women of social distinction who are near, or at the end of their lives and have had an impact on society based on that sum total; in the meanwhile, these subjects are just Pop Culture and need to be listed accordingly. Kardashian is not from a lineage that has had an impact on society, but has acheived notoriety for one, small incident that received minor attention. It has had no impact on the culture at large. Hilton, on the other hand, has a place as a socilaite as her lineage denotes an impact on our soicety (the hotel chain). Comparing Kardashian to Doris Duke or Patty Hearst is a weak link at best and that sort of random placement needs to be monitored and settled in the proper category. American Socialites is not that category. ZiggyFortunado 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It really makes me wonder why this kind of people receives any attention in wikipedia. A line of famous people who are famous because they are famous, c'mon!, It would make more sense to put the profile of a sexy local high school teacher rather than have a page for this trash, daughter of rich, good for nothing socialite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crapysaurus (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Check sources

Please check the sources you cite. I just removed a link citing the comments section on a gossip blog. --~ Mr. S 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Four references are invalid

Four of the references for this article are invalid. Three of them are to vivid dot com and are all commercial advertisements. The New York Daily News link is dead and needs to be re-sourced. I will be removing the vivid dot com links immediately, and will leave it to the regular editors of this article to fix the Daily News link. Risker 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

People take note: Kim allready stated on her site that she is not German!!! Her real grandfather was Scottish! If you dont believe me please read the article on her blog! She said her grandmother just confessed! So please reorganize!!!!!!!!

Media spotlight

Paris Hilton is her primary source of fame and friend, Like Hilton, Kardashian has been reported in the tabloid press for her romantic interests in singer Ray J, and a graphic sex tape that was purchased by Vivid Video in 2007 for $1 million from an "unidentified" source and depicts Kardashian and her then boyfriend Ray J performing various sexual acts. Prior to the release of this adult film Kardashian announced her intention to pursue legal action to further block distribution of the tape. This was the first public acknowledgement of the existence of the tape, which she had previously denied. Despite the impending lawsuit, adult retailers started offering the ability to pre-order the tape in Feb 2007.

I beleive all of this is relevant information.. except the dead link.

especially liked the <removed commercial spam link inserted by Anon IP editor> -=o)

I added a press release citing also and it was removed.

I am sure you did. However, advertising links are not permitted on Wikipedia. And edit warring over which commercial link to add is also frowned upon and can result in the editors involved being blocked from editing. Stick to reliable sources, not the company website. Risker 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't get more reliable than the actual sex tape website.. When you start censoring in this regard where do we stop.. fascism ?

Wikipedia is not a free advertising source. These are straight links to "purchase" the video. They aren't even press releases, and they certainly do not verify the information for which they are being used as references. If you disagree, take it to dispute resolution. Risker 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed several spam links to the Kim Kardashian Sex Tape. These links are all affiliate links to the Vivid Video site. Even if there was a valid reason to allow the links to the video, the only valid link would be the direct link: kimksuperstar.com. All other links are affiliate spam links.

Press Release Removed

I added the following press release and it was removed.

<removing link to commercial spam added by User:Bigdaddyc187>

That's because it's a press release. It is not being reported by an independent reliable source. The sentence for which it was being used as a reference is still in the article. But if nobody other than Vivid thinks that the release of this video is notable then the reference does not belong in the article. The press release is simply advertising in a different cloak. Risker 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the article, it really needed clean up. Artaxiad 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

huh?

Like her friend Paris Hilton, Kardashian has been reported in the tabloid press for her romantic interests in singer Ray J, and a graphic sex tape that depicts Kardashian and her then-boyfriend Ray J performing various sexual acts

Paris is known for dating Ray J and making a sex tape of Ray J and Kardashian?

Plastic surgery

Until someone has an independent, verified source to support the notion that Kardashian has undergone extensive plastic surgery, this has to stay out of the article. Get your sources lined up before including it - and "before and after" pictures are not verifiable sources. Risker 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a safe bet that she had a nose job. 75.36.234.199 08:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on, anyone so concieted that they have and flaunt a personal shrine of themself in their house has bound to have had some plastic surgery.

Now there's nothing wrong with being born into money, as long as your thankful for the opportunities that it will grant you in life. There's a lot of rich people that make great contributions to society. But believing that you should be a celebrity because your daddy has money, that's just called being a spoiled brat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sex Tape

Stop deleting mention of the sex tape. It's now sourced with decent articles. It's the primary reason this person became famous, although she appears to now be self sustaining. (This fact makes me hate the entertainment media, but it makes me hate myself more since I paid enough attention to know that fact).

As a side note- if you consider something poorly sourced search for a more reliable source before you delete it. Dropping "kim kardashian sex tape" into google news gets a ton of hits. This girls seems to be famous for being nekkid.

It keeps being deleted because it is being inserted without references and contains information that is clearly controversial. Our policy on biographical information about living persons is very clear that such information must be removed on sight. Please do not reinsert it unless you can do so with a (non-commercial) reference source, and that the information inserted is completely confirmed by the reference source. Risker 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

```` This is why wikipedia is flawed. The sex tape exists. People have seen it. What kind of references do you need?--69.149.222.32 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source for one thing. Tabercil 12:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in several entertainment mags. Someone just find one that mentions it, like a People or EW or something, then use it as your source. Then these people can't keep taking it off. Also, what's this 'non-commercial' requirement? I mean, newspapers are a buisness but does that mean the New York times is no longer valid here on wikipedia? Newspapers have add pages, yet often run articles on things that are subjects of their adds, does that mean the Chicago Tribune is suddenly off limits? Christ their are free sites you can go to and view parts of the damn tape at this point, and it isn't like she's disputing it's her or her boyfriend in it. How can it it be called "controversial" if the person isn't disputing it? Controversy is like saying a star is gay, when they've never said it and have denied it. It isn't just "ow something is racey". That's not the type of controversy wikipedia is refering too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.184.56 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "non-commercial" is a reference source such as the ones you have identified - published newspapers, magazines, etc - reliable and verifiable sources per our policy. This article has been heavily spammed with links to various sites selling the video; those are commercial links that do not meet WP:V or WP:RS. Many of the edits about this sex tape allege activities which Kardashian has flat out denied having taken part in; that is why any edits need to be well sourced. Risker 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The sex tape is mentioned on the Ray J page of wikipedia.. there is no reason why it should be there, but not here.. it's inconsistent. As well, sites like the Internet Adult Film Database and the Internet Movie Database have entries for the sex tape (nb: these two sites are used as references in the wikipedia article for 1 Night in Paris.)99.237.217.67 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read this article? The sex tape is mentioned - in the first paragraph. There is even a google search link used as a reference that demonstrates the existence of the tape is directly relevant to Kardashian's notoriety. One of the references discusses the sex tape. And really - big deal, it's a sex tape, they're a dime a dozen and not much more needs to be said about it. They are so commonplace now that, if not for the fact she was in a television program, I'd be hard pressed to consider her notable. But the stuff that keeps being added is a highly POV and unsourced statement about plastic surgery, and a link to purchase the tape. Neither of these two things is acceptable. Risker 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

meanwhile in 2008 kim kardashin has a tv show and a flys around the world being social. you have to love the attention people get for making a sex tape. and all the gifts and cash prizes. her mother cetainatly knows how to be a good manager —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleykit (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sex Tape should be added in the filmography as it is now available for streaming at jitterville.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.90.117 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Commercial linkspam again

Well, it seems the semi-protection of the article was sufficient to force the spammers to go back to their long-dormant accounts and start inserting commercial linkspam into this article again. Linking to a commercial porn site is NOT appropriate for either a reference to the article, or as an external link. I will be requesting blacklisting of the "new" url to the commercial site, and will be asking for checkusers for the editors who have suddenly developed an urge to edit only by adding this link. Risker 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The urls to which this commercial linkspam was directing have now been added to the spam blacklist and are no longer able to be added to the article. Risker 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thnks fr th mmrs

dont you think her involvement in the music video (shes Petes love interest...and the monkeys) should be included in the video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.39.205 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My conflict of interest

{{request edit}}

I have a possible conflict of interest editing this article. I don't know the subject personally, but I know someone who knows her, so would that count as a conflict of interest?? I'm not really sure how to edit this article. Thanks, --Solumeiras <sup>talk</sup> 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to edit it, as long as your edits are within the WP:Biography of Living people. In short don't add anything that you heard from your friend, but what you can prove with Reliable sources. VartanM (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Also, it rather depends on whether you feel, in all honesty, that your knowledge of the person would mean any bias, either overly celebratory or overly critical, being introduced into the article through your edits. If you alone think that your contributions would not be made from a neutral point of view, then you should desist. Thanks. Ref <sup>(chew)</sup>(do) 14:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

photo

Could someone take a look at this photo? It is licensed cc-by-nc-nd, which may be problematic, though resizing doesn't seem to violate "nd". Argyriou (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

NC is no good. Wikipedia wants to be able to profit. VartanM (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed former partner from the infobox. VartanM (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ND is no good either. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ray J a Rapper?

"she had made with then-boyfriend, rapper Ray J," Why is Ray J called a rapper when he actually is a R&B singer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.126.26 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

All sounds the same to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.148.9 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Although she is having an affair with Tyler Moran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.232.158 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete and utter farce

This article is absolutely loaded with promotional language, selective editing and unsupported claims. For starters she doesn't give 10% of her income to charity nor does being a "socialite" count as an "occupation". Using long lists of congratulatory adjectives is NOT encyclopaedic nor neutral.

The fact that this article has been made protected with so much positive bias leads me to believe that someone has paid a PR team to influence the consensus here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source of information for people who don't want to sift through pages and pages of marketing speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.13 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hell yes ! Like most people, I came to this article to find out WHY this woman is famous ? Is it just for sucking a guy's cock on video tape, or is it more than that ? Instead, this article is substance free trash - sound familiar ? I learned nothing about this woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.14.128 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Religion

I was looking for Kim Kardashian's religion and did not see it in the article. Is she a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church? If someone knows, please add this information to the article (with a good reference, of course).-Schnurrbart (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently she donates heavily in tithes to the Life Change Community Church in Calabasas founded by her mother. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1350685/Kim-Kardashian-reveals-Piers-Morgan-funds-mother-Kris-church.html 198.182.37.200 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Social Media Presence

Kim Kardashian uses Facebook to connect with her fans in a unique way. Many celebrities use Facebook merely for the purpose of promoting their products, as well as update their Facebook pages in third person, which makes the Facebook page appear very impersonal. However, Kim Kardashian uses Facebook to relate to her fans by making her Facebook page very personable and approachable; she often reaches out to her fans by asking their suggestions for different decisions she has to make, such as posting a photo on Facebook and asking her fans what colour of pink she should accent her new perfume bottle with. She also creates polls for her fans to ensure her page is interactive with her fans. She also connects with her fans through social media by updating her status on what she is doing as well as her feelings, or by asking her fans questions. This method of Facebook usage helps her to create a para-social relationship with her fans<ref>{{cite book|last=Turner|first=Graeme|title=Understanding Celebrity|year=2004|publisher=Sage Publications|location=London, UK|pages=92}}</ref> .

71.231.13.199 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Is that supposed to be informative or should it be seen as more of an advertisement?

Elle aime bien se faire aimer!

Wait. Kim has fans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.143.253 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

She uses Facebook to talk to people, post photos and asks questions? In what way is this unique? 203.190.252.2 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Adult film actress?

Why isn't she placed in this category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.157.235 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)  Not done because she was in a sex tape, not an adult film. making sex tapes does not make you an adult film actress. --QuickEditor (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

She dropped the lawsuit in return got paid $5 million, essentially, she sold her sex tape. I think that makes her an adult film actress, her porn video is commercially sold by vivid studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.31.50 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that getting paid for a sex tape would put her in the same category as every other adult film actress or porn star. Does the quality or number of adult films she has starred in matter? She had sex on camera and was paid for it, even if after the fact.

Please add "Amateur pornographic actress" to career description. This should warrant a distinction from simply "actress" in the title. As to validity, she acted in an adult sex tape that is currently for sale in the public domain, over which she has accepted a settlement claim over, acceding to Vivid Entertainment's right to distribute. Beyond accuracy and validity, this is relevant as not only does her page discuss said sex tape later in the article, but analysis of Google search trends show a distinct spike in interest correlating with its existence, as shown in another post in this talk page. Request made as QuickEditor is blocked from further edits. Can someone please make this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.142.255 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, for the same reasons all up and down this page. And, are you saying that you are QuickEditor? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he/she is simply the only one to have actively addressed this issue. Considering he/she was banned and has been called out for being overly controlling over this page, I felt the matter warranted further discussion. While it is a bit frustrating not to have any of my points addressed, I can respect your opinion. 24.57.142.255 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I thought this had been discussed in detail below; it is mentioned, but I don't mind explaining more. She is not an "amateur pornographic actress", because she did not produce the tape with the intent of it being viewed by members of the public; i.e., she was not being an "actress". Doing one thing and having it become publicly known does not define what a person is, even if they make money from it. For example, buying a lottery ticket and winning does not make one a "professional gambler". Similarly, putting out a fire, receiving a reward, and going on talk shows to discuss it does not make one a "fire fighter". Yes, Kardashian was in a sex tape. Yes, she currently makes money from it. But there is no evidence that this was a career choice. The article already discusses the sex tape, even right in the lead. But characterizing who she is a person with that label is simply wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

controversy among Armenians

I know that she has been a subject of controversy among Armenian communities for "selling out" (i.e. having intercourse with an African-American). Many I know have called her <redacted>. I think this subject should be included in her article, at least in some regard. I recognize that articles/sources would be expected, but I certainly have numerous cases of what Wiki would dismiss as "original research." That doesn't make it a non-issue of Armenian introversion. ~~Doesn't this biased attitude toward Afro-Americans make it their problem, not hers? Anyway, she's better built than her critics.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I redacted the offensive description above; WP:BLP applies on talk pages, too, and unless you have reliable sources claiming people have called Kardashian those things, we should even list it here on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deleteion

She's not worhy of an article she doesn't do anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.132.197 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done There are plenty of sources that show that she has gained notability. Decisions made on Wikipedia are not based on someone's personal opinions.[[1]] Just because plenty of people hate Paris Hilton does not mean she is not worthy of a Wikipedia article, does it? No, she has gained notoriety. Whether or not she deserves an article is irrelevant because she has notoriety. There are plenty of sources showing her notoriety. Please see Wikipedia Biographies of living persons. --QuickEditor (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If decisions are not made based on one's opinions- then why is "Chaz" Bono considered a Man based on her own opinion? She was born with female sex organs. Yes, yes, this isn't the Bono page... but same idea...

Additionally,Kim Kardashian's opinion is that she's filing for divorce- not that anyone cares... but it's not notable because it's her own opinion, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.252.249 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Like the use of 'notoriety' rather than 'notability'.86.157.141.21 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

'Fixed Thank you. --QuickEditor (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

She's what I call a "garbage celebrity" but her level of notoriety does make her a legimate celebrity. The race doesn't always go to the swift, nor does fame to the genuinely notable. 70.26.90.152 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Psoriasis

Kim Kardashian was diagnosed with psoriasis. http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/21/kim-kardashian-diagnosed-with-psoriasis-report-says/ Should she be added into a group or at least have a mention of her having this disease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.102.93 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done An entertainment blog article is not a reliable source, and even if you manage to get a reliable source that topic is not notable or relevant enough to her to be mentioned in her article. --QuickEditor (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - she is known for modeling. A dermatological condition such as this impacts on her modeling. It also demonstrates that models are "human" (away from the airbrushing ...). It is now sourced to something other than a blog. Still not a great source, but it seems to be used for plenty of sheleb BLPs.

QuickEditor, a word of advice: you do not own this article & it is apparent that sometimes your lack of experience shows. That will, of course, become less common as you contribute more. Best rule: if in doubt, seek advice before advising someone else. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In the latest Keeping Up With The Kardashian of season 6 episode 6, it has been seen that Kardashian has been diagnosed with a hereditary skin rash disease called psoriasis from her mother Kris Jenner who's also dealt with the condition since she was 30. During the episode, a distraught Kim discusses the consiquences she would be facing in her carrer in the media industry that could be a carrer ending for the star "My carrer is doing ad campaigns and swimsuit photo shoots. People don't understand the pressure on me to look perfect." However, her dermatologist has concluded the reason of the sudden rash outbreak could be due to both stress and pressure caused from her hectic schedule. Sleep and eating a healthy balanced diet and minimizing alcohol would help with the skin irritation. Kadashian recently tweeted saying "For every set back, god has a major come back!"

Sitush, the episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians that mentioned her psoriasis did not air until after this discussion section was created. Also, I watch the show regularly for your information. --QUICK EDITOR 22:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

cookie diet lawsuit section needs to be removed

The "cookie diet lawsuit" section needs to be removed. No matter how notable it is through countless news articles, it is not notable enough to be relevant to her article. It's honestly silly that it is even mentioned in the article. Someone with editing privileges please remove it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --QuickEditor (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and notability are different things. If it has been mentioned a lot in news media etc then it will be notable, and I can see nothing to suggest that it is other than neutrally phrased (although I am not familiar with the case and *hate* celeb culture!) Are you perhaps thinking of WP:DUE ? You can edit it yourself as you have the permissions to do so, but I suspect that it would be better to listen to responses here before diving in. Up to you, though. - Sitush (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it again, your right. But, even though being notable, it is not the mainstream level of notability that would make it worthy enough of mentioning in the article. No, I do not have the permissions to remove it, and even if I did I would not remove it without discussing it first. Anyway, you already mentioned that you hate celeb culture, which comes from a biased point of view. --QuickEditor (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about the "mainstream level of notability" makes no sense to me at all. You are taking your "neutral" campaign (as per your user page) too far here & I suggest that you back off a bit. Read what I said again: "Up to you, though", with everything preceding it being basically against your suggestion. If I hated celeb culture and let that affect my judgement then I would seeking to have this article deleted and be in favour of any suggested at all which caused it to become smaller. Please do not query my ability to disconnect; & check my edits to the article before making statements like that.

You do have "permissions" to edit: a semi-protected page can be edited by a registered account that has done as much other work as yours has. Open it up, change one letter, save it & then undo your change if you want to prove this to yourself. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done The section "cookie diet lawsuit" has been removed. The section was removed for the following reasons: (low in importance and notability to be mentioned in the article: kim kardashian). A consensus has been established due to the following reasons: (no considerable objections to the section's removal were made by an editor within a lengthy amount of time of the since this section was originally edited and for the said reasons above). Please do not attempt to revert the "cookie diet lawsuit" section back into the article. User:Sitush, the article's discussion page is not a place to argue. Please use the talk page, talk if you would like to further discuss the changes that have been made. Thank you. --QuickEditor (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted: you cannot make a decision based on a 24 hour-ish window of opportunity for response to a discussion, nor did you have consensus. I really do not understand the rest of your rationale, sorry, except to say that the place for discussion of an article is indeed the article's talk page & not your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid Wikipedia:Edit warring. This discussion is over. The discussion page is not a place for Wikipedia editors to argue. --QuickEditor (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now I have no civil answer to that ^. I will put it down to your inexperience. In future, just remember these points:

• you do not get your own way.
• article talk pages are for discussion of the article.
• changing something when there is a clear lack of consensus is not a good thing.
• re-read the policies for NPOV etc because you are getting them mixed up.
• read up on what is and is not edit warring, and check WP:BRD also. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections to your proposal in, say, 14 days from now then feel free to remove it. Until then, you need to give people a chance to respond. Some only look at weekends, some may be on holiday etc etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions and advice. --QuickEditor (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done It has been a week and nobody has opposed, besided you. A week is long enough. The psoriasis section will stay, her psoriasis diagnosis has been mentioned countless times on her reality show. Also, it is not up to you to decide how long I must wait before making the edit. Thank you.--QUICK EDITOR 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And why, pray, does my opinion not count? - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you can revert back now as QuickEditor has been barred indefinitely from editing anything. --Panzer71 (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the cookie diet lawsuit should stay in the article. I am also going to see if I can find information about Kim's lawsuit against Old Navy/Gap as well.--BeckiGreen (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Primereal, 11 August 2011

Please change this sentance (in the career section): "The trio released a jewelry line for Virgins, Angels, and Saints" to "The trio released a jewelry line for Virgins, Saints and Angels" because "Virgins, Saints, and Angels " is the name of the line. Not "Virgins, Angels and Saints".

References: http://khloekardashian.celebuzz.com/presenting_the_kardashian_collection_by_virgins_saints_angels-02-2010 www.vsadesigns.com Primereal (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Kim kardashian got married

Kim kardashian married Kris Humphries on the Saturday 20th of August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.110.174 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Ok But divorced October 31, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GibbyW24 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

10% of income donated to charity?

There are no sources for this and unless she releases her tax returns there is no verifiable way to confirm it. It should be removed. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sezitoli, 26 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change the following:

Her father was a third generation Armenian American and her mother is of Dutch and Scottish descent.[3] Her paternal great-grandparents immigrated to Los Angeles from Armenia. Her last name in Armenian (spelled Քարտաշեան in Armenian) means "son of a stonemason." Although only half Armenian, she states that she "was raised with a huge Armenian influence, always hearing stories of Armenia, eating Armenian food and celebrating Armenian holidays".[4]

To: Her father was a third generation Armenian American and her paternal great-grandparents immigrated to Los Angeles from Armenia. Her last name in Armenian (spelled Քարտաշեան in Armenian) means "son of a stonemason." She states that she "was raised with a huge Armenian influence, always hearing stories of Armenia, eating Armenian food and celebrating Armenian holidays".[4] A DNA test revealed that she is 94% Armenian and 6% Native American.

Explanation: Footnote 3 is a dead link, and below is a link to a clip explaining her Ethnicity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48EYn9vqZrQ

Sezitoli (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

People sometimes just make stuff up to feed the news, and then get themselves in a tangle of half-truths etc. I wonder if that has happened here. If the interview you provide does indeed say 94% Armenian & 6^ Native American (I cannot check as I am deaf), then how come she has claimed to be Scottish, Dutch etc also - see this from what has for a long time been thought to be her official blog. Or is it in fact the case that the blog is a scam? - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"youtube" is not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  05:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

Please change: Reportedly, the wedding cost 20 million dollars and neither Kardashian or Humphries payed for any of it.

To: Reportedly, the wedding cost 20 million dollars and neither Kardashian or Humphries paid for any of it.

Because there is no such word as "payed." Thanks. 204.126.240.6 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Bility (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

Begin of edit.

Kimberly "Kim" Kardashian Humphries (née Kimberly Noel Kardashian; October 21, 1980)[1] is an American businesswoman, socialite, television personality, model, actress, and now the wife of Kris Humphries, NBA player. She is the daughter of late attorney Robert Kardashian, and though initially known for an explicit video tape with former lover Ray J, she has grown into a successful idol for many women. Not to mention the global hit, Keeping Up With The Kardashian's, the family reality tv series on E!. Kardashian's prominence has increased as of January 2011 with the premiere of Kourtney and Kim Take New York, the second spin-off of Keeping Up with the Kardashians (the first being Kourtney and Khloé Take Miami), debuting on E!, with the series following Kim and sister Kourtney Kardashian as they leave Los Angeles to open a third D-A-S-H store in New York City.

Kardashian has launched multiple fragrances, guest starred on numerous shows, competed on ABC's Dancing with the Stars, and has had roles in movies such as Disaster Movie and Deep in the Valley. In 2010, Kardashian, along with her sisters Kourtney and Khloé, released an autobiography, Kardashian Konfidential.[2]

End of edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsPoojaShah (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that your suggestion is to make this a replacement for the existing lead? It is not neutrally worded, and there are no sources for her being a successful idol for many women or for the program being a global hit. - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Social media and relationships.

Kim Kardashian is going to be searched on Wikipedia hundreds of times every hour, therefore this page needs to be kept up to date. In 'relationships' there is no current post on her new groom, Kris Humphries. Also, in 'social media' there is no mention of Twitter and Kim regularly communicates with her fans and announces news via twitter so this needs be cooperated within the article. Kim Kardashian is in the public eye too often and aspects in her life i.e.: location, relationship status, big events are constantly going to be changing but we should try and represent her as promptly and as precisely as we can.

Pooja Shah. Massive Kim fanatic <3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsPoojaShah (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia not a vacuous gossip blog. Take your cheerleading elsewhere please.

Humphries (her husband, not groom) and Twitter (which she allegedly exploits to manipulate her followers & further line her handbag etc) are both mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is not a social media website and there is no need to fill this article with trivia listing every tiny twist and turn in her life: we do not exist as yet another outlet for her self-promotion etc. Being a "massive Kim fanatic" may constitute a conflict of interest when it comes to editing this article. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

President Obama

It was widely reported in many sources that President and Mrs. Obama do not want their children to watch the Kardashians. This is notable because the Kardashians, especially Kim, has developed such a notoriety that the President of the United States mentions them. I think only a brief few sentences is enough, but maybe a section heading. Maybe it could be in the context of Kim becoming a cultural icon, with some (Obama) not liking it. There are plenty of sources to draw from. Jennifer L nomorenamesleft (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well if it is to be added, it should be under the controversy section and with some explanation as to why the Obamas do not want their children watching. G90025 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 2 November 2011

Please change Spouse Kris Humphries (2011–present) to (2011–October-31). Because thats the day she divorced Kris Humphries.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/31/kim-kardashian-divorce-kris-humphries-files/ Sam (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is the day that she supposedly filed for divorce. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Buttocks

Why is there no mention/photo of Kim's hips/buttocks in this article? They were absolutely key to her ascent to fame. --Stybn (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is, and no more need be said. In fact, the less said about this person the better, imo (if only I ruled the world ...!). - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

lol too true. it should say "Kimberly Noel "Kim" Kardashian (born October 21, 1980) is an American businesswoman, socialite, television personality, model, and actress who became famous because of her enormous plastic butt and sex tape."

Armenian Spelling

Kim's last name should be spelled "Քարտաշյան" in Armenian. All Armenian last names end in "յան". It means "son of" and is pronounced "Yawn." The current spelling listed in the article is "եան." "ե" is the letter "e" and is pronounced like the first "e" in "ever." No Armenian last names end in "եան." Rosewinter (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wedding to Kris Humphries

The Wiki lists their wedding costs at $20 million however the amount Kim and Kris actually paid for the wedding was pretty close to $0 and the total costs paid by others would be between $6-$10 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.23.162 (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article already notes that sources claim that their personal costs were nil-ish. Regarding your source for what the actual costs were (allegedly incurred by others), well, to be honest I really couldn't care less but would be happy to compromise on removing all of the speculation entirely. Why can we not just say that it was a $multi-million affair, with estimates as high as ... and they are reported to have not to have had to outlay anything of any substantive value themselves (apart from getting out of bed to show their faces in front of the cameras etc). I do not even see the need for all the crap about Perrier-Jouet/Lehr & Black etc, which I see as breathless tittle-tattle from gossip rags. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

Kimberly Noel Kardashian got married to Kristopher Humphriesin 2011 and Divorced 2011. It still says she is married to him. This needs to be changed since it is giving out false information about the Reality Star

GibbyW24 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: because the divorce hasn't been finalized. Baseball Watcher 23:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

On April 23 2010, Kim Kardashian claimed that she was a victim of domestic violence by her ex- husband Damon Thomas. According to court document, Kardashian was often left bruised and battered from Damon Thomas, punching her in the face, slamming her against walls and throwing her across the room.She recalled one incident of physical abuse when they were about to go skydiving with singer Justin Timberlake. Kardashian stated that "Before we left our home, Damon hit me in the face and cut my lip open," she stated. "I fell into the bed frame and banged my knee hard. I was limping when we went skydiving." Another incident happened when Thomas was suspicious about who Kim was paging she states that"He became enraged and punched me in the face. My face was bruised and swollen as a result," she said. "I thought about calling the police but was afraid and decided not to do so." During another incident Kardashian said "Thomas became angered while she was retrieving something from the bathroom in their home.He allegedly slammed her against the closet wall and held his hands around her neck, threatening to choke her. He then grabbed me by my hair and told me to get out," she states in the documents. "He put one hand against my back and pushed me up the stairs (the front door is on the ground level and the bedroom is one level below ground). At the top of the stairs, he threw me across the room and I hit my head against the front door. I got up and ran out of the house. I was frightened. Kimberley claimed that Thomas gave her a close $3,700 to get liposuction becuase he wanted her to look perfect. In the court papers, Thomas was accused of having so much control over his young wife that he forced her to quit jobs and college and prohibited her from seeing any friends. Kardashian said that, "Damon decided what we would do and when we would do it. He was very much the "King of the castle,'" she said. "He said he wanted to know where I was at all times."Kardashian also alleged that Thomas would start arguments at family gatherings and even tried to convince her that her mother and sisters were "evil."

GibbyW24 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Baseball Watcher 23:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sex tape contents

I added a short description (one sentence) of the contents of Kim Kardishian's sex tape. My edit was reverted by User:GFHandel with the edit summary giving the reason as unsourced and "unnecessary". As I have easily located a source, I would like to re-add the information though this does not address the assertion that the information is unnecessary. I think it's quite clear that if any information on the tape is necessary (it currently has its own subsection) then a short description is appropriate. Arguments that the information is obscene, objectionable or otherwise offensive are addressed by the wikipedia policy on censorship. Handschuh-<sup>talk to me</sup> 05:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition of such graphic, unsourced, and unnecessary information in this article. I doubt any source would be considered reliable, and such information doesn't deepen the understanding of the topic of the article. GFHandel ♬  05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The commercially available DVD "Kim Kardashian Superstar" is reliable published source for the contents of the leaked tape. I fail to see how any depth of understanding of the topic of that subsection can be claimed, when the contents of the tape are not at least in some way mentioned. 182.2.99.218 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So a DVD is your "easily located source"? Have a read of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. GFHandel ♬  20:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I would consider the DVD to be a primary source. As per the policy on sources; A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Given that I only want to make straight forward descriptions of the contents and not analyse or interpret it in any way, I think the policy is supportive of using this source. 182.2.99.218 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Way to go to cherry pick the parts of a policy that suit your case (while carefully disregarding the spirit and intent of the policy). So an x-rated DVD that is illegal to purchase or import in large parts of the world (as it would be where I live) is what you consider "any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source"? Anyhow, with zero support for your arguments (let alone anything resembling majority support), there's no way that your DVD review (such as it is) will ever make it into the article. Are you certain that you can't find better things to do at WP, because I'm quite certain that I can. Plonk. GFHandel ♬  04:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the section of policy that I see as relevent to the issue. I disagree that that's cherry picking. What specifically am I missing in the spirit of the policy? The fact that the source is illegal in some parts of the world can't exclude it from use in my view. Voice of America, Mein Kampf and Pihkal are all examples of publications that are illegal in some places, but ofcourse they can be cited especially when they are the subject of discussion.Handschuh-<sup>talk to me</sup> 04:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose gratuitous. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the legality of the source is irrelevant. What is important is that the contents of the sex tape are simply WP:UNDUE to this biography. No encyclopedic value is gained by explaining exactly what Kardashian did or didn't do in that sex tape; what is important is that there was a sex tape (which the article discusses). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pick your battles better. Kim is a sacred cow at Wikipedia. They simply will not allow anything to be said about her that doesn't portray her in the most flattering light possible. JetBlackSunrise (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011

Under the righthand Information Bar, in the Spouse section, Kris Humphries should be amended to 2011-2011. 2011-present is INCORRECT.

207.151.76.123 (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As has been stated on several occasions, she is not yet divorced. Filing a petition for divorce is not the same, in law, as being recognised as divorced. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

also a quarter russian

Could someone add that her mom is also partially russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.129.117 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

no, where is the source???04:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.193.63 (talk)

Good question.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Plastic surgery

Since there is so talk about her extensive body modification through plastic surgery, perhaps there should be a section on that if we can find reasonable sources to cite. G90025 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• How about not promoting tabloid-based information in a BLP? Till I Go Home (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2011

Public Backlash

As of 12/14/2011 over One Quarter Million Americans have signed a Petition Pledging to Boycott Kim Kardashian on BoycottKim.com. The website was shortly launched after Kim's 72 day marriage ended with Kris Humphries. The site encourages viewers and Americans alike who believe Kim Kardashian to be a poor role model for her young viewers to boycott retailers who sell Kardashian items, and those who hire Kim Kardashian to market their products.

As our friends and neighbors struggle with real problems including inflated prices for fuel and groceries, a frightening job market, and a broken and divided government, we cannot continue to be distracted by moochers like Kim Kardashian. American families work hard to educate and raise their children with faith and morals, working ever longer hours to make ends meet. We do not need the added burden of explaining to our daughters why they should work hard and get an education versus the pursuit of a materialistic lifestyle by any means necessary including selling out their principles and exploiting sex for profit. We are tired that the media focuses so much attention on negative clowns like Kim Kardashian with little time devoted on our true heroes who have become ghosts with little to no recognition. And above all, we are fed up with companies that believe us to be ignorant and perhaps stupid enough to shop at their stores, buying their products promoted by talentless, tasteless and shameless parasite like Kim Kardashian. Until we speak up, these companies will continue to follow a marketing strategy designed for the sole purpose of fueling their profits, and rewarding buffoons like Kim Kardashian. - BoycottKim.com

A sister facebook group relating to the BoycottKim.com site has reached over 50k fans who are fully engaged and respond with hundreds of negative comments every time the media writes a story about Kim Kardashian. Similar outrage can be found with numerous online petitions, and twitter posts by Americans who have grown tired of seeing Kim Kardashian in the media spotlight.

According to "Frank", the founder of BoycottKim.com, the backlash is more than justified. "Kim Kardashian is a bully, and will do anything to extend her fifteen minutes of fame to cash in from Americans, and unfortunately the media keeps playing her game. What has changed is that Americans are speaking up. The site is created so that Americans have a voice, not only against Kim Kardashian but corporate greed. Nothing is more American the spirit of a Boycott, it is the ultimate way for ordinary Americans to stand up for their beliefs and up against forces usually too large to go at alone. We hope BoycottKim.com will be an example for future boycotts against social and economic injustice to come."

Already, major sponsors such as Sears have hinted that the Boycotts may affect their business and are watching closely. Magazine sales featuring the Kardashians on their covers have also shown a decrease in sales.

The Kardashians have hired attorney Martin Singer to represent them against the negative backlash. Mr. Singer has already began threatening Jonathan Jaxson, Kim Kardashian's former publicist responsible for outing Kim on previous publicity stunts.

Fbast (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not going to happen, sorry. There is practically no sourcing, it is a wall of text and we do not promote causes here. I am almost tempted to remove the request entirely because of the sometimes inflammatory language used within it. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Purely out of interest, how do you know that the "over One Quarter Million" are all Americans? And is there any connection between yourself - "Fbast" - and "Frank"? - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like only time will tell but that wall of text may indeed be a symptom of something that is indeed notable.

• http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/celebrity-news-gossip/boycott-kim-campaign-gains-momentum-as-kardashian-backlash-begins-2971282.html

• http://newsone.com/entertainment/newsonestaff4/kim-kardashian-boycott-boycottkim-website/

• http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/271406/20111222/kris-humphries-nba-s-hated-player-kim.htm

If this thing gets bigger something may need to be said. Just sayin'. Rutilus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

OJ Simpson

Should it be mentioned that her claim to fame was being the daughter of the man who defended OJ Simpson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.142.254 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not without sources that show it to be at least reasonably as significant as her TV shows etc in defining her "claim to fame". It may well have helped her start out but I think that you will struggle to confirm that it is now significant, regardless of its accuracy. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)