Talk:Kristin Cavallari

Reality Lasik Series

Kristin recently did a series on her Lasik procedure. I was going to add a blurb on it under the Filmography section; it this the right place for this? Wanted to check before I edited. Thanks! Lauraxp 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cavallari's Ancestry

Cavallari is Italian-American. I added this before, and it was removed.

Stop vandalizing the site, you punk.

I wasn't the one who removed it, but how do you know that she's Italian-American? Just from her name? Americans of different European ancestries usually intermix. She could be only 1/64 Italian. As a matter of self-identity, she might not consider herself to be Italian at all. Culturally, she might have no remnants her Italian ancestry left. She certainly doesn't look Italian (unlike me - and I don't consider myself to be Italian). Her ancestry is probably an insignificant detail of her background. Bostoner (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Het interests

Don't know but I wuld like it if anyone would put some in here.

Delete

She should be on the Laguna Beach wiki, or the Laguna Beach cast wiki, she does not need an entire page. This page should be deleted ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.131.133 (talk • contribs)

Shes not dead ,why does it say shes dead?

Delete

This page needs to be Deleted her only success was being on a Reality Tv show, she is not a star, and does not even qualify as an actor, she does not meet the standerds too have a wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.131.101 (talk • contribs)

Place of Birth

E! Online (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,73808,00.html) says she was born in Chicago, but the article says Colorado. Which is it? --Thebigjc 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

no one seems to know. some places say illinois, some say colorado. and in the laguna beach book, it says she lived in connecticut before she moved to colorado, which was before she moved to illinois, so maybe she was born in connecticut. who knows.

Stop Deleting the talk page

IP User: 24.161.131.101 and 24.161.131.133 (who are the same person). Please stop trolling this talk page and inserting nonsense such as "she doesn't deserve her own page." The subject CLEARLY meets the established guidelines for inclusion in wikipedia. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that is simply the way it is. Additionally, blanking of pages is considered vandalism and can get you banned, please refrain from blanking pages in the future. I have restored the page in its entirety. Batman2005 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Just rememved a reference to Kristin Cavallari as a "slut". Seems that there's a very strange campaign against this entry, so someone should keep an eye out for it.

Reply to above: Definitely. If I were an administrator right now, I'd suspend them for making such Jeff Hardy & Bam Margera-type remarks like that. I'm getting sick and tired of vandals being highly influenced by those two to vandalize Kristin Cavallari (and I need to stop talking like Elliot Stabler from Law & Order: SVU as well). She does not deserve to be called that. I will DEFINITELY be keeping an eye out for punk and goth kids vandalizing this page at the behest of Jeff Hardy & Bam Margera. Sounds like Jun Kazama could do away with them... ;-) --D.F. Williams 03:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• What do Bam Margera and Jeff Hardy have to do with this? - Ocatecir 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's so hilarious, how you do that relentlessly in every comment you ever make, D.F. Williams. Honestly, it's awesome how you use your little code words like that, people never get tired of it. You thinking Rich Kids on LSD was an insult to skate punks as opposed to a skate punk band was also pretty classic. Just kidding, you're doin' great.

• What do punk and goth kids have to do with vandalizing this page? You have magic webcams set up to SEE who's doing it? That's amazing, D.F. Williams! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haythere (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But anyway, to those who advocate deletion of this article, the subject is clearly notable and not just for Laguna Beach, as she is a constant subject of Hollywood news programs and has acted in her own right. --Tractorkingsfan 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Virginity

Someone needs to mention the Teen People article in which she said she lost her virginity at 14. It created a little beat of heat and obviously contributed to the perception she's a "slut" (see above). Very important and it should be mentioned. Aaрон Кинни (t) 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Is that really so odd these days? Isn't 14-15 like the average in the US?? --TheTruthiness 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that what they're getting at is the mention of controversy resulting from as opposed to the fact itself, in which case I would tend to somewhat agree. Statement of the fact itself however may not be relevant to anything; can't say that I recall seeing it on anyone else's page. The worldwide stat is something in the range of 15.1-15.3 fyi iirc. --MercuryFree 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, 60% of Americans lose their virginity when their in college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.200.24 (talk • contribs)

Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy against angry 4-letter words like that? --D.F. Williams 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nope. The BLP means we can't say "Kristin Cavallari is a slut." and any negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. But the word "slut" in and of itself is completly acceptable. SLUT SLUT WHORE BITCH CUNT COCK, they're just words, dude. --TheTruthiness 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about that? What's strange is: no reference to Lauren Conrad on the page. Isn't the Kristin-Lauren feud a major reason for Cavallari's fame? [anonymous user] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.208.171 (talk) 18:45, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Her last name.. is Cavalleri

It is Cavalleri.

it just is.

ok?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KmsTigers02 (talk • contribs) .

As I said on your talk page, I don't claim to know if your statement is true or false, but official policy WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you can provide a proper source, add the claim that she has changed her name (or whatever) to the article. -- Scientizzle 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Model

See [1] Model is defined as "a person or thing that serves as a pattern for an artist; especially : one who poses for an artist" or "one who is employed to display clothes or other merchandise." Nowhere does it say that a model has to be signed with a modeling agency. One could additionally argue that an actor or actresses Agent, or Manager who books and sets up said photo shoots is a type of talent agent, thus serves the same functino as a modeling agency. Additionally, the wikipedia page for model says absolutely nothing about the necessity of a modeling agency. The Category says nothing about the necessity of a modeling agency, or that for inclusion modeling must be the primary job. Simply put, a person who serves in one single advertisement for a single product is a model, and has served as a model. Cavallari has appeared in numerous photoshoots as a model including some advertisements....appearing in advertisements and being paid for it.....makes her a model. Show me one place where it says that an actor or actress isn't a real model and i'll delete the information, void of any proof to the contrary, Cavallari is a model based on past work history. Batman2005 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Model on Wikipedia is a disambiguation page, and should not be linked to directly. I'm not going to get involved in the debate about whether she's a model or not, because I know nothing about this person, but if the links are present, they should go to model (person), not to model. Use a pipe: [[model (person)|]] shows as model. I'm re-adding the disambiguation links. This is not part of some edit war; this is part of a wiki-wide cleanup effort. Please don't disrupt it. Thanks. (FWIW, the model (person) page lists no requirements for signing with a modeling agency either.) --Xtifr

She might have worked at a 7-11, but her occupation doesn't say "sales clerk". She doesn't model even semi-regularly. Having your photo taken by grandma could make you a "model" by the vague definitions you're using- the entry on artist says "a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art." Photography is deemed an artform, so if Grandma Betty says she's an artist and you posed for a photo, I guess you're a model. :/ I guess the best debate isn't if she has done anything considered modeling, but if the frequency she does it makes her being a model notable enough. I'd say a definate no to that one. --TheTruthiness 00:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(Thanks for fixing my missing tag.) I know nothing about this person, but I find myself drawn into the debate nonetheless. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to add "sales clerk" if you could document the fact that she'd worked at 7-11. I do agree about pictures by Grandma, but I think a celebrity endorsement might well qualify as modeling, if the celebrity modeled the product. Notability is a guideline for article inclusion, not, generally, for facts mentioned in an article. If you go look at What Links To "model (person)", I think you'll find a HUGE number of people whose claim to being a model is just as tenuous as Ms. Cavallari's. But then I tend towards an inclusionist philosophy in general. But I will say that I think this article has much bigger problems than the question of whether Ms. Cavallari is or isn't a "model". -- Xtifr 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the category makes no stipulation on number/type of works for inclusion. Cavallari has done numerous magazines, has also been in several advertisements for different companies. If she had been a sales clerk at a 7-11 previously there likely would be mention of it somewhere in the article, and if there was a category of "people who used to work at 7-11" then she would certainly be in it. Cavallari is a model, whether the editors herein like it or not. Not including her in the models category simply because she is predominiately an actress is subjective and POV. If you don't think she should be included, then changes need to be made on the category, stipulating the criteria for inclusion to excluse people like Cavallari who are notable for one thing, then move into another field. Shaquille O'Neal is listed in MANY actor categories, but he's only been in a few different movies. Should he be removed? Cavallari has likely been in as many advertisements and magazines as O'Neal has been in movies, the inclusion of both O'Neal in Actor categories and Cavallari in Model categories are totally appropriate. Batman2005 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

'Personal Life' entry

"She has a pierced navel". Does this alleged fact warrant an entry?

Does she really have a sister named Peighton The article refers to her as "now 13", but there has never been any mention of this so called sister, nor is it mentioned in the article cited. Additionally, and internet search of "Peighton Cavallari" only brings up the exact sentence from the Wikipedia article...seems suspicious that there are no other internet mentions of photos of this sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.21.23 (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

From her IMDB bio, which is publicly edited but can be assumed to be at least proofed by an agent for falsehoods: "Lived with her parents in Colorado, until her parents divorced. Her dad moved to Laguna Beach, California with her brother, and she moved to Illinois with her mother." So safe to assume no sister, the only biological sibling is a brother, plus another step-brother. Markneill (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Kristin's Birthday

Kristin's b-day is listed as Jan. 5, 1987 but all sources I've been looking at report Jan 14, 1987. Does someone have a way to confirm which day it is so that we can source it? Thanks!--Excelcleo 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kristin's bday IS january 5...She even mentions it in an episode of the Hills Season 5! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.94.215 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cavallari on UPN.jpg

Image:Cavallari on UPN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gossip mags are not reliable sources

Specifically when To celebrIty media whores. People.com is almost never acceptable as a source on wikipedia 206.116.112.61 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Promotional edits and unsourced content

An IP editor has recently been adding promotional material to the lead [2], as well as restoring material that is not supported by the cited sources [3]. Content on Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources, and cannot be based solely on the original research or opinions of Wikipedia editors. Additionally, per WP:BLPLEAD, occupations in the lead should be "one, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." However, none of the sources added by the IP editor support those descriptions in the lead. If sources are available that support these edits, then they should be included prior to restoring the material per WP:BURDEN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This annoying Wally person keeps reverting my edits because Kristin Cavallari is 'not known' for being an author and fashion designer (ACCORDING TO HIM) when she totally is... All of her books were New York Times bestsellers and she is currently known for her company Uncommon James. He also added unnecessary 'citation needed' parantheses to her filmography paragraph even though every single movie she's been in in the paragraph has a Wikipedia article which clearly lists her as a cast member, and he's reverting the list of books she's written from being a colon to a hyphen which just pisses me off because you write a list with a colon when the preceding phrase is a complete clause so he's just insulting my intelligence as well. I'm not an expert at Wikipedia but is there any way to block him from editing her page because he seems to have a history of doing this nonsense on other pages and I'm tired of reverting his reverts of my edits. Your editing is not more valid than mine. 173.35.240.92 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support your claims regarding what the article subject is "known for"? You cannot simply base that on your own personal opinion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I had sourced them but you deleted my sources and when I include sources you accuse them of being promotional so you basically just want to be difficult. 173.35.240.92 (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not true at all, which is obvious from the diffs of my edits that I included in my initial post here. If you are not able to provide sources for your content addition, then you should not be adding the content per WP:BURDEN. Please also indent your comments per the policy at WP:TPG. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That's really laughable since I've contributed more information to this page than you have. All you've done is revert other people's VALID edits. Did I indent it enough for you sweetie? 173.35.240.92 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot provide sources for your changes, then the content will be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you find another page to revert everyone's changes since you've contributed absolutely no new infomation to this page? That would be wonderful. 173.35.240.92 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You are in the wrong site. This is not thepersonwhoaddsmoretextwins.com. Reverting edits that violate policy is a valid action. So, stop being silly and listen to Wally. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why do I need to "listen to Wally" exactly? What authority does he have over me? But anyway I would be much happier if my contributions were discussed here before being automatically reverted in the future as I have made as sure as possible to reference everything and not make the page sound 'promotional' (even though I'm literally just including news pieces that are relevant to her career). 173.35.240.92 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So, you only listen to people who have authority over you, and when anyone else says something, you invent ridiculous pseudo-reasons for not listening to them, like "my added text is longer than yours"?

When Wally said your additions were unsourced, you changed the subject instead of linking your sources to prove him wrong. That is not how it is done here, and it is highly unproductive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)