Talk:Karlie Kloss

Eye color
I know in her information her eye color is hazel,but I believe it's a mistake. If you get a picture with good quality on her eyes,you can notice they're actually blue with central heterochromia. Central heterochromia is when you have a different color around your pupil,usually different shades of brown. The difference between hazel and central heterochromia is that in hazel eyes,the inner color fades in the outer,and mix with it,in CH,that doesn't happen,the colors don't mix,they just end as the other start. Also,in central heterochromia,the outer color can be blue or green,and when you name the color,it's with the outer color,in Karlie's case,blue. Hazel eyes always have brown and green,they never have a shade of blue.

It's a common mistake,multi colored eyes,such as central or sectoral heterochromia,are named "hazel",usually because most people doesn't know about central heterochromia. Actually,true hazel eyes are very light brown,but the definition of hazel got lost somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.44.41 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:V and WP:OR. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes you're exactly right Toccata quarta. The above arguments are original research and not verifiable. The simple fact remains that her agency, IMG, lists her eye color as hazel. As for looking at photos of her, I would remind you of the existence of both colored contacts and Photoshop.  Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * BOTTOM LINE: find a RELIABLE source (not your opinion, not you looking at a picture) and we can change it. That or call IMG and convince them to change their site. If you change it to green without a source you will be reported for vandalism. Eric Cable  !  Talk  06:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should use the eye color stated in a credible source (IMG Models' website), not original research from photographs, but edits like this are not vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM ("Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."). Rebb  ing  13:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Then what is the alternative, an edit war? Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the dispute resolution policy. IPs like this aren't usually trying to be difficult; they're just trying to correct what they perceive as errors while having little or no understanding of how Wikipedia works (for instance, the importance of sourcing). Most won't check the talk page or history, and many don't appear to have an IP long enough to see their talk page messages. If it's only happening a couple times a week, likely by different editors, I revert each with a simple explanation (e.g., "Contradicted by the Blah ref. If this is incorrect, feel free to provide reasons or a source on talk."). Usually, this is the easiest approach and all that is needed. However, if I feel like my reverts could reasonably be questioned or I'm concerned about appearing too aggressive, I open a talk page section giving my reasoning and inviting discussion and reference that in my revert summaries. For more persistent problems of this nature, it's usually trivial to develop consensus, and, at that point, editors or IPs who revert repeatedly (not mere drive-bys) can be sanctioned for disruption or 3RR violations. (Obviously, it's important to keep track and avoid violating 3RR oneself while doing this.) The next level is requesting page protection. Rebb  ing  18:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rebbing for continuing to monitor and reverting as needed. I'm sure the IP editors don't see nor understand this conversation or the comments you put on your reverts. Honestly, I believe her eyes are green, but the only reliable source I've found is the IMG link that is currently listed (which I added) and it says hazel. Eric Cable ! Talk 14:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Life Magazine
Her cover of Life Magazine in September 2011, and the photo story should be added to the article. Sources:
 * Stylecaster
 * W Magazine
 * Huffington Post
 * Refinery29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amethyst1234 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the information to the article. I am having trouble finding the story on life's website itself. Any help would be appreciated. Amethyst1234 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Karlie Kloss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080421185351/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/04182008/gossip/pagesix/model_shop_loses_star__sues_107102.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/04182008/gossip/pagesix/model_shop_loses_star__sues_107102.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090427112412/http://www.teenvogue.com:80/style/coverlook/video/2008/01/dreamgirls_20080626 to http://www.teenvogue.com/style/coverlook/video/2008/01/dreamgirls_20080626

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ms. Kloss' height?
Over the past week or so, I've reverted several unsourced attempts to change the height shown in the infobox from 5'11" to 6'2" or 6'3". I looked into it, and I have grave doubts that the current number is correct. IMG Models—her agent—gives her height as 5'11"; ordinarily, I would consider that a fairly solid source, but several other sources show or quote higher numbers:


 * ET Online: 6'2".
 * Daily Mail: 6'1".
 * New York Post: 6'1".
 * St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Kloss described herself as 5-foot-12 ('I'll never say 6 feet,' she told Vogue when she was 17 and still growing because of the industry taboo of being too tall)."

Many sources comment on her unusual height, which suggests to me that 5'11" is not correct:


 * Vanity Fair: "Karlie Kloss's towering height was not always an asset when playing basketball in school. 'I was at least six inches taller than all the other girls at one point, and I was really aggressive, and I would always reach over the girls, and I'd foul out of the game.'"

And Racked suggests her modeling agency is not being completely honest:

"Karlie Kloss is behind a collaboration with Frame denim that will be music to the ears of any woman who's ever struggled to find pants long enough. It can be hard enough to find well-fitting, flattering jeans as a person of average height; when you're as tall as Kloss, it's another matter.

The model's exact height is in some doubt. Her agency showcard puts her at 5'11", but that is often industry codetalk for "taller than 6' but we don't want to put that because it might alienate clients OH LOOK, A BIRD." Vogue says she's 6'1". Maybe she's even taller? Who knows.

But in any case, the girl is tall. "Freakishly tall," as Kloss herself puts it."

I've decided to go with 6'2", citing ET Online, as that seems more supportable than 5'11", but I'd like to hear thoughts on the matter. Rebb ing  21:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the IMG page for her says 180cm which is five foot, 10.86 inches which is basically 5'11". If we're going to use the IMG site for eye color (see above) then it would make sense to use the IMG site for height... would it not?  Eric Cable  !  Talk  17:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How can we be certain that the IMG page is up to date? — Smjg (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a source from Karlie Kloss' official instagram account in which she describes herself in her bio as "a six foot two giraffe from the lou" and I don't think it can get any more trustworthy of a source than that. Karlie has her height in her own instagram bio. Emilymarie10 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a source from an interview with Vogue and they asked "how would you describe yourself to others" and she said "I'm a 6'2" giraffe from the Lou" here is the link https://www.vogue.com/article/73-questions-with-karlie-kloss

"Kloss is a computer programming activist"
This sums it up: http://imgur.com/a/bmWvc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:C360:A2E:1C78:3CDA:F0EC:A47A (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for these discussions. However, I'm particularly disturbed by the (facetious) Tweet (which, unlike the Instagram post, isn't available). I'm all for proper commenting, but there is no need for two comment blocks for one function.  This should have been:


 * Most likely, I would mark it static inline as well. Rebb  ing   15:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Imgur page looks to me like a parody. Clearly the purpose is to show in an exaggerated way the difference between two styles of programming – one hard to make sense of, and one excessively commented, redundant and with bits of light-heartedness.  I can't see any evidence of who originated the image or its content ... and would hope Karlie doesn't really program like this.  We would need a reliable source to tell us what her programming is really like. — Smjg (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"Kloss is an avid computer programmer"
There is no evidence to suggest Karlie Kloss can program. The only evidence to suggest she knows something about computing is screen shots of her going through a beginner's tuturial in Python. Her repositories on GitHub (https://github.com/karliekloss) show no signs of intelligence or actual work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.188.121 (talk)
 * This seems like possible WP:OR. We can only go by what the WP:RELIABLESOURCES say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Python
I marked "Kloss is an avid computer programmer having learnt Python" as not in the given reference since I read the cited article and there's nothing in about her learning Python. Either the bit about Python should be removed, or the citation slid to the left to indicate its a citation that she's an avid programmer, rather than that she knows Python. It was my first edit so I accidentally didn't explain it to show up in the page History, so I'm mentioning it here. Actually there's no mention of any particular language she learned, though it does give the name of the school she took classes at, which has a public curriculum which lists several (other articles have mentioned Ruby). PoangSitter (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Avid Computer Programmer
There is absolutely no evidence given that she is an avid computer programmer. The article directly quotes her in saying, "When you can’t figure out how to scrape from a certain API..." which is incorrect terminology and demonstrates that she in fact is not an avid computer programmer. More correct is to state that she has supported some code camps in the past. I changed it. Saying that she's an avid computer programmer is quite frankly, highly offensive to computer programmers who are avid computer programmers - just because someone is famous doesn't mean they get a bunch of undeserved talents and skills associated with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.51.62 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Avid Computer Programmer Reverted
Avid Computer Programmer change keeps getting reverted. There is no evidence of her computer programming ability. The article cited states she is an avid computer programmer, however at the same time demonstrates that she is not an avid computer programmer.

Wikipedia's rules on biographies state that:

1) Blogs as a source need a higher standard of question for verifiability. This did not come from Fast Company, but rather Fast Company Digital, which is a blog.

2) More scrutiny is merited when there is a financial incentive. Kloss is a spokesperson for a company called Wix.  Wix is a tool which helps people who don't know how to code well to build websites.  There is arguably a financial incentive for her to be able to get people to try coding, and when they find out that it is difficult, they would fall back into Wix rather than actually coding websites themselves.

Here is an advertisement with Karli Kloss as a spokesperson for Wix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fueho8FMaZ8

Height
There had been disagreements over Kloss's height, and for good reason because the sources out there offer different values. Her modelling agency puts her height at 180cm. However, agencies often use 5 foot 11 inches as code for "taller than 6 feet". Kloss herself said she'll never refer to herself as 6 feet tall.

On the other hand, Vogue puts her height at 6ft 1in in an article published in 2015. The same magazine gave her height as 6ft 2in in 2018.

I think it's evident that Kloss's height is more than 5'11", and should be updated to the more recent figure of 6'2". I'm interested to hear thoughts on this matter. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Celebriot.com is definitely not a reliable source that shouldn't be used anywhere in Wikipedia.
 * Has there been any efforts to get some general consensus on how to address these edit-wars over models' measurements? I've never paid too much attention, though I watch a few articles to help. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Modeling agencies are known to embellish height for some models (for example IMG saying Barbara Palvin is 5’9” when she is clearly 5’7”) just as much as models do themselves. In this case there should be a sources differ statement on it with reliable sources, not Instagram captions. I could easily call myself 5’11” and get away with it yet my doctor is measuring me as 5’9.5”. Who are you gonna trust? Trillfendi (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we treat any stat that's not easily confirmed (height and other measurements) as questionable? Leave it out if there's no consensus across the better sources? --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So complicated, leaving out is best I agree.PrisonerB (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

[T]aking a two-year hiatus in 2015 and 2016 to study at New York University
The article doesn't state whether this was taking lower-division or upper division classes. Did Kloss finish her BA program at NYU? Does she still attend NYU? Torowhynot (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Political views
I expanded on Kloss' political views, and criticisms of her activism. Other pages include that kind of information, and I think it's very relevant given that she's related by marriage to one of the most controversial and politically powerful families of the 21st Century. At this point, it's one of the main reasons I see her in the news.Proudandbeautiful (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If independent reliable sources cover it as something other than just celeb gossip and clickbait. We're here to write a serious encyclopedia, which in cases like Kloss, every mention in the media should be considered for encyclopedic value and historical context. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources have. Including the New York Times, TIME, and CNN. But evidently there is a Wikipedia agenda to censor its inclusion. Weird. The reality is, people care about it mainly because of her marriage. We have a responsibility and editors of a BLP to include important information and maintain neutrality. That’s like going out of one’s way to remove any remote mention of the Kennedys from Arnold Schwarzenegger. That’s like removing any mention of the United Nations from Angelina Jolie. The simple fact that this marriage has forced the hand of her father into a political action for a global pandemic that affects millions of Americans should be reason enough for it because that is in itself encyclopedic and historical. Trillfendi (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indicate the sources, and please WP:FOC. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Google is truly free. Trillfendi (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You indicated there were sources. Where are they? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources that which I have placed in the article multiple times only to get removed for the sake of agendas? Trillfendi (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the venue for alleging "agendas". Please take it somewhere else. See WP:DR. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus fucking christ they already showed you the sources, Hipal you sound like a Trump supporter and any edits you make should be treated with suspicion.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please follow WP:TALK and WP:FOC. WP:AE applies here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that there has even been a back and forth about just broaching this for at least 2 years now is a clear bias here itself. Reliable sources—if people would stop removing them because the subject makes them uncomfortable! The same way people fell over themselves to address Naomi Campbell’s association with Jeffrey Epstein in a respectful, neutral way should be no different to address the obvious elephant in the room. Having a relation to a president is already important enough for a biography. She’s already said time and time again when asked that she’s a liberal Democrat. The sources are there but then we immediately get . I’ve tried to be diplomatic but now you want to lean into gatekeeping. Trillfendi (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires strict adherence to all content policies, and places the burden on editors wanting to include disputed information. It's a difficult gate to hurdle.
 * I suggest making an edit request, or something similar. At minimum indicate what you'd like added and the references to support them. Note that high-quality sources are required, and that there is a great deal of information that is simply inappropriate for encyclopedia articles.
 * The article currently indicates she is a Democrat and her relationship to the Trump family through her husband. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * High quality sources are given yet it keeps being disputed on here™. Did TIME stop being reliable all of a sudden? Trillfendi (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Time magazine ref that's currently being used? Make an edit request please or something similar. Thanks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perplexed as to why I have to ask permission from someone whose only sparse contributions have been reversion and edit warring. Trillfendi (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given WP:BLP and our behavioral policies, it's a good way to work cooperatively with others in a way that will result in some progress on improving this article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am adding the info with the aforementioned sources to the article, per Trillfendi and Jaydoggmarco. The content was sourced when I first added it, and since it appears that the sources do meet RS, I am re-including the content. Here are the refs used in the article [LA Times https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2020-01-03/project-runway-designer-shades-karlie-kloss-kushner], [Vanity Fair https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/01/karlie-kloss-dinner-with-the-kushners] [Refinery29 https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/06/9854293/tavi-gevinson-calls-out-karli-kloss-kushners-black-lives-matter], [Vogue https://www.vogue.com/article/karlie-kloss-interview-vogue-october-2018-issue], [Vulture https://www.vulture.com/2020/06/tavi-gevinson-calls-out-karlie-kloss-over-kushners-trumps.html]. Vogue is used numerous times throughout the article, and is certainly RS for Kloss. Since the source is reliable enough for flattering content, it should be good enough for more critical content. Whether the info seems relevant to you is not really important because the sources are considered RS. Proudandbeautiful (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing better sources, but it's still trivia. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the source is reliable enough for flattering content, it should be good enough for more critical content. That's not how it works. Context matters, and BLP places a very high standard to meet. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going ahead and removing the disputed content per BLP. If it's still in dispute, I'm happy to put the work in to get a clearer consensus. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've requested help at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the BLPN discussion because of spillover to another article: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Project Runway clip
A clip from an episode of Project Runway in which contestant Tyler Neasloney brought up Kloss' ties to the Kushner family went viral in January 2020. In the clip, Neasloney questioned whether Kloss would wear his dress "to dinner with the Kushners". Kloss discussed the viral clip on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, stating that she "honored to be one of the first memes of the decade".

I consider this undue trivia, unfit for an encyclopedia article on Kloss. If you can find a reference that puts the incident into historical perspective, indicating why it's important in a biography on Kloss (beyond elevating her in the public eye for a bit), then we'd likely have some encyclopedic context to put it in. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources have already been provided and meet RS and you keep ignoring them. I feel like coming to a consensus on this issue is futile given you want negative information about her blocked from the article no matter what sources are provided.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. My assessment of the sources demonstrates I'm not "ignoring them". I've also pointed out that better sources would give us a path forward, so there's no bias against "negative information". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed it again, as there's no consensus to include and discussion has stagnated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There seems to be consensus to include it, because Jaydoggmarco, Trillfendi and myself have argued for its inclusion. You are literally the only editor arguing that it should not be included. You just keep talking over everyone and insisting that the information is not relevant based on your personal opinion.Proudandbeautiful (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is this undue trivia? These are criticisms of Kloss that have been published in numerous respectable news/media outlets, and which have been continuously covered for years. That is like arguing that any criticism of the Kardashians or Paris Hilton is "undue trivia", it might not directly impact their careers, but it is a significant part of how they are known. Similar information is included in most Wikipedia articles, and it is important since this is an important facet of how Kloss' public profile as indicated by reliable media coverage of her. Individuals don't get to decide what is and is not important enough for inclusion, that's based on coverage and consensus. Also, why are you again "pointing that better sources would give us a path forward, so there's no bias against "negative information"? The sources in this section now consist of LA Times and Vanity Fair, which are unquestionably reliable.


 * The section can also be sourced with USA Today, ScreenRant , Variety and HuffingtonPost , which I took the liberty of verifying as reliable sources. This is well and beyond the coverage required to include information, you could make an article with fewer sources than this.Proudandbeautiful (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we disagree. Not all verifiable information is encyclopedic or worth mention. Please stop edit-warring. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only one who is edit warring is you hipal.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming from the BLP Noticeboard, I don't see a BLP UNDUE concern given the amount of coverage these events have received. This is a content dispute to consider the proper weight versus the overall coverage of her as a person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Multiple reliable sources have been used yet Hipal keeps reverting and refusing to let the information be added. He has also threatened to have me blocked and banned despite him not being an admin.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

BLM Instagram post
Kloss posted on Instagram in support of the Black Lives Matter movement in May 2020, stating that people should combat bigotry and bias "by having the first conversation at your own kitchen table." This was criticized by commentators in light of Kloss' own family ties, with writer Tavi Gevinson accusing Kloss of trying to "have it both ways".


 * Refinery29 is a poor source.
 * Vulture is a poor source for contentious statements.
 * This is far worse than the Project Runway clip. This looks like Tavi Gevinson trying to get herself publicity.
 * Like the situation with the content about the Project Runway clip, if a high-quality source becomes available placing the incident in historical context, we can reassess then. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed it again, as there's no consensus to include and discussion has stagnated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * According to WP:Perennial sources Vulture is considered reliable, and this is not a matter of contentious statements. The criticism of Kloss is verifiable, and has been reported on by various outlets. It isn't Vulture making the statements, they're just reporting on them.Proudandbeautiful (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We disagree. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
As an uninvolved administrator, I am applying discretionary sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action in the post-1932 American politics topic area. This applies to any edit relating to American politics, broadly construed. I have applied the following restrictions: I have added this restriction to the page's editnotice and will log this action shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
 * You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

Criticism?
The personal life section stated: Kloss has been criticized for her relationship with Joshua and Jared Kushner, and by extension to the family of Donald Trump.

I, however, did not find one bit of criticism in the two sources cited. The British Vogue article states that [Kloss and Kushner's] union has become tabloid fodder, put under further scrutiny by Kloss's own political views, which basically means that the media extensively covers how her political views are different from the Trump family's. Not only that, scrutiny and criticism are two different things. The Vogue article is just as irrelevant, as it is essentially a recap of the interview in which Kloss addressed the viral Project Runway soundbite. With all of that in mind, I have removed the statement for now, but I would love to continue the discussion should sources that verify any sort of criticism be presented. KyleJoan talk 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we really giving someone a criticism section because their husband's brother's wife's father is a President of the United States? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump family
Somebody reverted my edit into her bio of "member of trump family". Does anybody else think my edit is fair? Can we get some consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorikrasti (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems a stretch for the lede. What references support it? --Hipal (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Some of the first links that come up when you google her name are about her relationship with the Trump family which she is a part of.  etc. I think it makes sense for the lede. Maybe "is a member of the Kushner and Trump families."? Igorikrasti (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What if I added it at the bottom of the lede? The last line would be "Kloss through her marriage to Josh Kushner is a member of the Kushner and Trump families." Igorikrasti (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking for alternatives. Those refs are pretty poor, but I don't see a problem with your latest proposal if no one else objects. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree with adding the sentence to the lede since Kloss' connection to the Trump family is indirect, but her "Personal life" section could be expanded to include this information. Also, Igorikrasti, please don't remove correctly referenced information as you did here. Thanks, Vistadan 16:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that Igorikrasti is locked as a sock of . Blablubbs&#124;talk 08:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding relatives to infobox
I don't understand why her relatives cannot be put into the infobox? Consensus?

My Prospal: add Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, and Charles Kushner into infobox as relatives. They are certainly notable and she is frequently in the media due to her connection to them. Igorikrasti (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorikrasti (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Best be very careful with infoboxes, as there are sanctions per WP:ARBINFOBOX2.
 * I'm against adding any extended family to infoboxes in general, as it's usually UNDUE and detracts from notability. --Hipal (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that Igorikrasti is locked as a sock of . Blablubbs&#124;talk 08:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing political section
I propose to remove the political section of Ms. Kloss's personal life:

She supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election. In March 2018, both Kloss and her husband attended the March for Our Lives event in Washington, D.C. in protest of gun violence in the United States. She is a feminist, and has stated that her decision to leave Victoria's Secret was partly motivated by her beliefs. Kloss supported Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election.

As I explained in my edit summary: Removing WP:UNDUE content. The fact that she attended a march, said she is a feminist, voted for somebody is not relevant. Wikipedia does not cover all facets of someone's activities, see WP:NOTNEWS.

Consensus? Ezpeazylemon (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Her political views, about which she is quite vocal, have been covered by multiple sources so is not WP:UNDUE. Her feminist beliefs impacted her career choices so is relevant.  After all, she has a Wikipedia article because of her career.  Attending the march may be debatable as most of the coverage I found seems to be focused on Joshua, rather than Kloss. S0091 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A simple rule of thumb that I use in situations like this: If the content has been covered by my sources, then it should be easy to summarize.
 * Right now we're presenting a number of facts without much context, which gives the impression that the references don't have much context, so NOTNEWS may apply. --Hipal (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: you want to remove any mention of politics... yet not address the reason why this article even has arbitration for discretionary sanctions (hint hint: it’s U.S. politics). Can’t have one without the other. She is inextricably linked to it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I honestly had not noticed the article was under sanctions.  But yes, of course at least one the reasons for the focus on her political activities is because of her relationship to the Trump family. However, I agree with Hipal in that the article could do a better job with providing that context. (Side note: I do not believe I have ever received a DS notice for American politics but for the record am aware). S0091 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that Ezpeazylemon is a sock of Deltagammaz. See the SPI --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

height, again
i think because her height is such a remarkable feature and has been for a considerable portion of her recent career, it should be included in the article. karlie's literal catchphrase in terms of describing herself is "6'2 giraffe from the lou" and it was her bio on multiple social medias for years. no it isnt exactly easily confirmable but i would say the consistent description of her height has been 6'2 for years. like stated before, the sources listing her as 5'11 have a history of being incorrect about models heights so i dont think theyre worth considering, and things like vogue saying shes 6'1 when she was younger is close enough to 6'2 and can be attributed to aging and growing. Knii (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Knii - in the past, Kloss has also claimed to be 6'1, 5'12, 6'1.5, etc. The 6'2 claims were recent and the ones that have stuck. Her agency has always maintained that she is "5'11", even though this is more than likely not true since sources provided note that female models taller than 5'11 are considered "too tall" and often downgraded.
 * I don't see why the current consensus to omit height should be removed when sources are all over the place in height and this was subject to edit warring in the past IIRC. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

GA nomination
I have recently contributed a lot to this article making changes as required. Also I have updated the article's content with recent developments and removed unnecessary stuff. Seeing that no other editor among the top five authors of the page has made a revision since September last, I, being the largest author, have decided to go forward with the GA nomination of the article. I hope other users are not against it. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)