Jump to content

Talk:Kim Komando

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Bibliography" -> "Published Works" or "Writings"

[edit]

The term "bibliography" is ambiguous as a title for the section listing Komando's published works. It is not immediately clear if she is the author of the books, or if she is a subject of the books. Please clarify. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.12.44 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, makes sense. I switched it to "Published Works". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Komando" origins

[edit]

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable--a birth certificate and an expert source on genealogy are needed to verify the claim about her last name. Otherwise, the claim merely belongs in a "trivia" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.11.244 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The statement "X claims Y is Z" is very different then "Y is Z". Your demanding a source for the second statement when we actually aren't printing that. Kim could claim her last name is from Martian ancestor and we could truthfully and verifiably say "Kim claims her name is from Mars". Do understand the distinction that is being drawn here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction. As the statement is now, I still think it belongs in a trivia section. It sounds trifling. It really isn't significant where her last name comes from. Plenty of people have Russian last names. I look at "A" rated biographies, and I don't see those sorts of autobiographical comments in the main section. The reference link provided is filled with self-promotional topics. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion --"Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links) or biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article." Let's be clear that www.kimkomando.com is not Komando's personal website. It is ostensibly a commercial website for the Kim Komando Radio Show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.11.178 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fair enough... I'll concede the point that it's a fairly trivial bit of fact and I wouldn't relay be opposed to removal on that grounds. Then again, I'm sure the question gets asked alot (I was wondering...) so it I think we would better serve our readers to leave it in the article somewhere.
The website is commercial, yes, but that in no-way removes it as a reliable primary source for Kim's own statements. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with OP. If there's going to be precedence for quoting tidbits off her radioshow website, it's going to open up a whole can of worms. And I think this page has been down that road before (e.g. the Surius Radio and Howard Stern quibble or Komando's comments about Wikipedia). If the reader is really interested in her private comments regarding her name and her radio show, there is a link to her show's website in the maintext itself, and in the general references. There's no need to be quoting her website multiple times. J.S. does make an interesting point: she could have claimed her name has martian origins, and that would be still be a valid primary source. But, then again, why are these particular comments about her name included at all? The surname "Komando" is a standard and popular name in Germany and eastern European nations, and is certainly not unique even in the Americas. I agree: the reference note is pointing to a highly commercialized page on her radioshow website. I vote that this comment be removed or moved to an approciate section.
I'm not opposed to removing it on the ground of it's trivialness... however, I bet this question comes up all the time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that the link is dead, it should be removed. But if someone can find support, I believe it is nontrivial. I'm really curious whether it is a real name or a pseudonym. I mean, it's a really Hollywood sounding name... some people are born with those, and others make them up. I think which she is would be interesting and notable --TjoeC (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought it was a radio name due to its alliteration, but I have found newspaper articles back to 1977 and her mother also uses it. Since she also has it in her FAQ (I fixed the link), I think it is worth including. I will leave it in "Early life" and continue to improve that section. StrayBolt (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is altogether academic. "Komando" is a last name. No fewer than three of them graduated in various years from Saint Mary's Regional High School, Amboy NJ, with first names corresponding to those of the subject's claimed siblings: Richard, Kathy, and an incredibly full-monikered "Christine Komando Komando" ( https://old-friends.co/class.php?s=19428&c=1973 ), hopefully a misprint.
That would put the subject reasonably in the claimed provenance, but of course she did not graduate from that NJ high school but the claimed NJ Mount St. Mary Academy. This graduation is re-verifed and extant Jan.12, 2019, Wayback Machine ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160610072935/http://www.e-yearbook.com/yearbooks/Mount_Saint_Mary_Academy_Mountain_Chimes_Yearbook/1981/Page_179.html ) There is little more to say about it. JohndanR (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for removing audience rating assertion

[edit]

Here is the text of the assertion:

"Accordig[sic] to a talk radio industry publication, the program is considered the most-listened to weekend syndicated talk radio show. [1]"

Why it has been removed:
1) The source reference link is not correctly cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. It says Kim Komando is the source, then directs the browser to the talkers.com page. This is a violation of the talkers.com terms of use, and therefore, must be removed immediately.
2) The more appropriate place for this assertion is on The_Kim_Komando_Show Wikipedia page.
3) This list of statistics is not substantial authority on the topic. The footnotes clearly say these statistics are very rough estimates.
4) The list makes no claim about Komando's show being the "most-listened to" or a "weekend show." It is only by inference by the reader that this claim is made.
5) Serious doubts about the validity of this list: a) Don Imus is still listed, b) why is the distinction given to Komando's show over Brinker's when the statistics are indistinguishable?, c) Art Bell's weekend show isn't even listed here, d) do these statistics include Komando's *daily* Computer Minutes?
6) Weasel wording. "is considered" is on the list of avoidable weasel words. Her show could be *considered* to be all sorts of things.

Response
  1. - talkers.com's TOS is irrelevant to wikipedia. For the rest of it the article's citation can be improved to fix this problem.
  2. - I can accept this point, but it doesn't mean it can't be mentioned here in the context of mentioning her accomplishments.
  3. - Industry magazines are considered reliable sources. Thats why we cite the source.
  4. - Fair enough.
  5. - The stats are part of a magazine article, and as such, are not updated daily. Either way this entire point is irrelevant.
  6. - It's not a weasel word because the source making the consideration is referenced.
So, in closing, even with my objections to your various points I support the removal of the sentence. I'll see what I can do about creating a better worded sentence using this source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still object to the distinction about the top weekend-only rating. The source listing does not make this distinction. The reader is led to infer this conclusion. IN FACT, the Brinker Show and the Komando show are statistically indistinguishable, if you look at the margin of error. The source list does not even distinguish what qualifies as a weekend-only show. You are, therefore, adding original research. About the weasel wording: The talkers.com list makes NO CONSIDERATIONS at all. A consideration is a view or an opinion based on reflection. Humans make considerations. That's why it's weasel wording. Finally, the cume statistic should be placed in the first paragraph that deals primarily with her radio show.




Gee, had no idea posting information about one of the most listened to women radio talk show hosts would generate such controversy. Komando's like No. 3, and the biggest on the weekend. She doesn't do politics, which is rare. Thought someone might care about that accomplishment.

Regarding that list of biggest hosts, the Talkers Magazine list hasn't been updated. It list Imus, who recently was forced off the air. G. Gordon Liddy, I believe, doesn't have such a big show anymore. So it's likely Komando may move up.

Anyway, I put the original claim to large listenership on the Kim Komando Radio Show page, which I at the time didn't realize existed as a separate entity. Don1962 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Don1962[reply]

Don1962, thanks for adding this insight. I was concerned that the original wording claimed much more than what the talkers.com statistics actually represent. The error bars are significant, and there's been a lot of criticism about the ratings method itself due to newer, but ignored, distribution channels like podcasts, internet streaming, and satellite. Her show is indeed quite popular on the weekends, but making a superlative statement when comparing apples to oranges seems inappropriate. Do you feel satisfied with the current wording?
    • Biography

How about some more information, i.e., place of birth, parents, education? T.E. Goodwin 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads a little bit like propaganda

[edit]

i mean it says something like "broadcasts from a 10,000,000,000 square-foot studio" - who the hell would care about that? and many of the citations are from Komando.com

who edits this page, Kim herself? it just sounds silly. and i listen to her a few times a month but come on. 66.87.4.244 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called www.komando.com 'Forum' requires that you pay a fee & register before you can critique any of her assertions. While I admire much of the stuff she writes, she is virtually uncritical (and misleading) of her sponsor products. (Is this whistling in the wind?) See 'Carbonite Shortcomings'
--Wikidity (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this seems a lot like propaganda; I visited her web site, and got to a page that says "For security reasons, we block IPs from a few parts of the world. Our business primarily serves the citizens of the United States. Regarding online operations, we will take whatever precautionary steps that we believe are in the best interests of our company and our operations." How can she claim to be the most listened to program when by her own admission she has no presence outside North America ? How can someone who claims to understand technology not "get" that the internet is global ? per the comment on carbonite, someone should write a section "criticism" to balance things out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.154.88 (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born in 1967? Graduated from college in 1985??

[edit]

Her bio info says she graduated from college at 20. That would still have her born in 1965... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.252.185 (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article says she was born in 1967 and graduated from ASU in 1985 with a B.S. degree in Computer Information Systems. Anyone else here have a compsci degree? Anyone actually CHECK the ASU registrar records or is this just another case of "believing some website because it says so"? Anyone actually SEEN proof of birth? Something doesn't jive here.

I've heard this woman's radio segments and I have a compsci degree, there is no way this article is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.232.38 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

>>My impression about "Computer Information Systems" as a major is that it's Computer Science Lite: You'll know yourself around an IT department but you'll won't get "elbow-deep" in the hardware or software. ASU has a perfectly good School of Engineering that's capable of turning out perfectly good computer engineers but CIS is a major taught by the School of Business. However,the W.P. Carey School of Business at ASU is a Top-20 business school so a BS from there (regardless of the major) won't exactly be worthless. My guess that CIS graduates in the working world would serve as go-betweens between the IT nerds and the other departments. Bayowolf (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i think i heard that she graduated high school at age 15 or so, then graduating from university at age 18 or 19 if you're that smart might be possible? maybe i just heard an myth about her? i does burn me a little to hear her call herself the digital goddess or whatever "im so hot im so hot" lol. 107.32.156.252 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her year of birth has jumped around in various edits, hopefully honing in on the truth. Two other events I found: she graduated eighth grade in 1978 and was a junior in high school in 1981. Still searching for birth information. StrayBolt (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in July 1967 and came up through the New Jersey public education system. I graduated "on-time" from high school in 1985. If Kim graduated HS in 1981 (as stated in the current version), that's a full four graduating classes ahead of "normal" for someone born in 1967.Atltraffic (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"She graduated eighth grade from Watchung's Valley View School in 1978". Huh? Born in 1967, finished 8th grade in 1978? She would've had to have started first grade at three years old for that to make sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.142.74 (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Kim appears in the most recent issue of AARP magazine (August-September 2022) and is said to be 58. Richard K. Carson (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I tagged the whole article and all the dead links I could find (almost all). I was able to fix one of them. Article needs lots of work.--TjoeC (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Komando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Komando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Komando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toned this down, referencing needs work

[edit]

I agree with the tag placed two years ago: the referencing is atrocious. There are some that fall afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY and others are just a bad idea such as her mother's LinkedIn profile. I think in a while I'll challenge and cut some more of the wholly unreferenced stuff. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Komando&oldid=1207808839"