Talk:Kim Kardashian

Edit Suggestion
Would be great if we could change Caitlyn Jenner's name in the Early life and Education section. 2001:569:FE32:300:19D8:33FA:215F:2B37 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC

reggie bush...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Bush https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian including a mention of kim in reggies article, but simultaneously excluding any mention of reggie from kims article, seems as though it might imply that somebody made a decision that: kim is "important" enough for people who read reggies article to be made aware of her, if they werent already, but: reggie isnt "important" enough for people who read kims article to be made aware of him, if they werent already. even if there is no actual implication that somebody made a decision here, an inference might yet be made, whether directly or indirectly, that the message in question is still being conveyed. even if leaving reggie out of kims article, or vice versa, wasnt anybodys conscious decision or "fault" per se, do we really want to risk possibly sending such a message? personally, i dont really care either way, but there is a certain group of individuals who might care, relatively recently, there have been reports that they are exhibiting signs of increased activity. they like to portray themselves as extremely, shall we say, "aware" of the myriad problems plaguing todays society..

while most people who still possess a little common sense understand that this group is actually just comprised of a bunch of hypersensitive npc muppetbots, a message like the one being mentioned above, seems to be exactly the sort of thing theyre most triggered by. this usually causes them to display an exaggerated sense of self righteousness and outrage, while also seemingly acting as though they are contestants in some sort of competition to see which member can amass the highest amount of self ascribed 'victimhood points'.

i feel as though the most logical course of action moving forward, would be to remedy this matter as soon as possible, and avoid the manifestation of any possible future complications down the road. the easiest way to accomplish this would be to either, remove the mention of kim from reggies article, or include a mention of reggie in kims article.

thank you for your time and consideration.

if you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to reply to this topic or contact me on my talk page. Snarevox (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Add back that Kim was a model
Fix the backtrack mistake by Chicago and add back that kim was a model. There are countless photos of her modeling clothes. 71.193.77.103 (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ethereum Max scam?
Shouldn’t this be mentioned? Pretty major news in the crypto sphere. Electricmaster (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

New Lead
You fully reverted the new lead with the edit summary: "A number of issues with that lead. Order of notability. Her being in one of Forbes wealthiest lists isn’t one of the reasons why she rose to fame, it is rather a result of it, and mentioning it all right in the first paragraph does play with the tone of neutrality with the article. Avoid using adjectives such as ‘enormous’, it doesn’t make the info any more neutral either. Seems somewhat disorganised and impartial overall." I'd offered to discuss things here so I'm doing that now.

The point about order and unnecessary adjectives are absolutely fair. That said, the new lead introduced a series of new and more up-to-date facts and improvements as well. I saw you kept one. Why not fix things instead of (almost) completely reverting the efforts?

FWIW, I don't have any particular knowledge or affection for the subject. I certainly don't consider myself particularly partial. I do think that the article (and the lead in particular) does not give enough attention to Kardashian's substantial business accomplishments and the primary sources of her notability and fame and gives more attention to the more salacious or trivial parts of her life in a way that I think reflects a more widespread sexism in our treatment of influential women celebrities (not unique problem in Wikipedia, of course).

In any case, I was basing my work on several good and featured articles for other celebrities including Beyoncé and Gisele Bündchen (both WP:GAs) which both include an introductory paragraph that lays out the significant and importance of the subject before providing a chronological summary of their careers. It seems extremely unlikely that a person who does not know who Kardashian is would want to know about the sex tape before they understand what she is famous for and what she has accomplished. I saw 's message that the tape should be mentioned and like his modification to my edits that did so in passing much more than the current text you restored.

Should I make another attempt or do you want to discuss this more? — m a k o ๛  02:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image
, writing off my edit to the infobox as WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems kind of disingenuous? My edit summary was, low-resolution crop replaced with high-resolution professional photograph. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY encourages us to choose the best quality images available. The image I added might be 8 years old, but her appearance has not changed in such a way as to confuse readers. The image is an appropriate representation of the topic and is moreso the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see, as per MOS, than the current one in my opinion. In terms of quality, I refer to my edit summary. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the current image was added without prior discussion as well, so I'm not sure why you act as though the replacement of infobox images in this article is somehow an exception of WP:BOLD. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 04:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the one on the right that of "high quality" works? Personally, the lighting is way too off. I'm not sure what makes the fact that the left was a crop so unappealing. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just that the left one is cropped, it's that it's low-resolution on top of that as opposed to the right one. The left one is blurry when upscaled because it's a tiny crop. This is especially noticeable on mobile; when you click on it to enlarge it, you literally have to squint because it's not even 200 pixels wide. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 05:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , since you haven't commented further, I've requested a third opinion. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 20:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my fault, I didn't see this notif.
 * Ultimately speaking, I don't see how the low resolution is of any matter given that said image is meant to fit in the infobox. It also doesn't seem to be small for mobile applications either; unless your attempting to look for dead skin cells, one doesn't have to squint in both the web and application versions of mobile Wikipedia. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What it seems to come down to is that we have irreconcilable perceptions of what constitutes high quality images. I just don't see how one could argue that out of those two, the left one is the best quality image available. The left image is clearly more blurry than the right one, and I stand by my argument regarding mobile. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 23:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Saw this listed at Third Opinion. 3O's are like stopping someone on the street and asking, "Is the Brooklyn Bridge for sale?", for an offhand quick opinion. Here's my opinion: Keep the existing image. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite. You're actually supposed to consider both editors' arguments and provide the reasoning behind your argument. 3O explicitly discourages participants from treating discussions like a vote. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 23:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox image
Should the picture in the infobox be changed? 23:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: The current picture is a 199x275px crop of a 3000x2000px photograph, making compression, grain, and blur more apparent (especially on mobile). The right photograph is high-quality and well-lit. It might be older than the current one, but the subject's appearance hasn't changed in such a way as to confuse readers. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not certain I have an opinion on which photo to use outright, but I will say it's somewhat striking to me how differently they both portray the subject. Does that matter to the thinking? I don't think either is unflattering or a BLP violation, but one is professional looking with the trappings of state behind, and the other is casual with a blank background. It's a very stark contrast. --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My thoughts as well. I don't think it goes as far as a BLP violation, but the current image has a certain connotation to it that isn't necessarily appropriate. She's a television personality who made a one-time visit to the White House. Using that picture as the lead image makes her look like an elected official. If we only had the current image available, fine, but we have a higher-quality image that is a more natural and appropriate representation of the topic (MOS:LEADIMAGE). Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 08:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even thought of natural as applying to the setting. I was mainly focused on how much it replicated an elected official portrait and whether that was potentially an issue. But you're absolutely right pointing to that section of the MOS. Having had a minute to chew on that, I support the new image as it better complies with the MOS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per Throast. First image looks like that of a government official. BogLogs (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I really got a good laugh about the comment that it makes her look like an elected official. That's either a major stretch or an insult to the reader's intelligence; I'm not sure which. That said, if it's a choice between the two, I'd pick the smaller photo. I think the tied-back hair is a rather severe look, but the lighting is better and the background is good. Not great but good. In the second choice, the lighting is bad, and gives her skin an almost green complexion. Her hair is in her eyes, and also casting a shadow across her eyes, and she looks stoned. And the background is horrible. It almost looks like someone used a pair of scissors and cut around her photo and stuck it on this incredibly-overpowering, white background. In short, it's a horrible image. (You wouldn't happen to be this person would you?) However, I think this RFC creates a false dilemma fallacy, in that it assumes we only have two choices. We actually have an abundance to choose from. The lede pic should be the best one we can find. It should be a portrait style, with the subject facing the camera, and looking right at it if at all possible. It should have a good background, with good lighting and color. Something like a professional photographer would take for a graduation photo or something similar would be the most ideal. I say, find a third (or fourth) option, because the one suggested for replacement is a bad photo. Zaereth (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've added the best images I could find of her within the past 10 years.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of quality, these two are objectively worse, even when compared to the current one, since they're severely compressed and blurry screengrabs of videos. Don't know why you'd choose any of those two in favor of a professional headshot. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I never understood the argument against screenshots (in most cases). In 99% of cases, the "over compression" that people frequently complain about is barely noticeable unless you deliberately enlarge the image. Something that people have to realize is that we are optimizing images for their comparatively small presence on a webpage and not full size portraits. Ditto for the argument against the current image.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I might not have taken your poor eyesight into account, but I can tell that both of your proposals and the current image used are of inferior quality without enlarging them. I wouldn't have opted to change the lead image if I didn't. Using cropped YouTube screengrabs when we have professional photographs available is just nonsense. If you don't see why that is, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 03:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * K and I also might have not taken into your account your colorblindness considering that your arguing in favor of an image where she looks whiter than fucking Shaun King. Even if the screenshots suffer from over compression, that's still better than the image that makes her look like she's finna form a planetary system around her.  Crusader 1096  (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: per Throast. Less compression. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral they're both fine. Second one is less flattering somehow, but is higher quality.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: For anyone living under a rock, the current photo does give an air of political involvement and professionalism that is not true to Kim Kardashian's actual cultural influence. Though the proposed replacement does have some harsh shadows, it is more indicative of the subject's cultural relevance. Plus, it does a better job reflecting her current look (facial surgeries, hair color, makeup style). Sergeant Curious (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree: It is true that the current picture look isn't of the highest quality, and it suggests that Kim Kardashian is a government official. However, the second picture also looks weird and bad. Sure, it has good quality, but it still looks like Kim Kardashian from Wish.Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Kim Kardashian West, Parramatta Westfield Sydney Australia.jpg I still say find a better pic. I see a couple more choices added, but I'm not sure I like those either. This pic here is not much different from the one the OP proposed, but look how much better it is. It doesn't have that weird greenness to it. She is smiling and looking right at you (it doesn't look like she's staring right through you, or off into space, or was caught right as she was starting to blink or something). It looks like it was shot at the same event as the OP's choice, but is dramatically better in everything from lighting to color, reduced shadows, and just in her overall expression. I'd pick this one over all the ones that have so far been presented, but there may yet be a better one. Commons has thousands of them to choose from. Zaereth (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , while I find this one a bit oversaturated and poorly centered compared to my proposal, I'd gladly settle for this one if that would mean your support. I've thoroughly searched Commons for the best possible pictures before I started this RfC. As with almost anyone, you'd be surprised to find how few good pictures there are available (editors over at Kanye West settled for a photo from 2009 because the next-best pictures available are blurry screengrabs). This photo set (her at Parramatta Westfield Sydney Australia) are the highest quality/most recent pictures that are available. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 10:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I found this revision of the picture I proposed. Would you be happier with that level of saturation? Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 17:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2023
Kim kardashian appeared on some drop dead diva episodes 2601:8C1:817C:2100:9B0:DD33:A56:4366 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2023
ColmeTJ (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC) I want to add that Kim Kardashian is the fourth most-followed woman on Instagram.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hrvatski
Hrvatski 93.143.190.40 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Add truth behind sex tape planning and release
It was proven with legal contracts and documents provided by William Ray Norwood Jr. (a.k.a. "Ray J") that Kris Jenner had planned the sex tape as publicity for the family. There is documentation signed by all parties including Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian and William Norwood that the sex tape was done by fully consenting parties and that the release was authorized by all parties.

The existing text stating that [the sex tape] "...was leaked." is incorrect and has been disproven.

- https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-09-12/ray-j-kim-kardashian-sex-tape-kris-jenner

- https://www.tmz.com/2022/09/11/ray-j-kim-kardashian-kris-jenner-lied-sex-tape/ Ghost mv (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, not truth. The two sources you provided don't "prove" anything; all we could say is that Ray J is alleging these things and that the Kardashians denied it. And I'm not sure that's worth including. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023
Maya12345677 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)hi I found some grammar stuff in the early life section that has been bothering me

Maya12345677 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. Would you mind telling us exactly what those are please? That's the easiest way we can help you. Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Grammar fix please
Her father didn't total her car. She did. A simple fix, please someone. 92.62.3.30 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you give a reliable source to support your claim? AN article that says that she totaled her car, not her father? Professor Penguino (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind my first reply. I have already found a source and the changes were already made. Have a nice day. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Typo fix request
Please change the fifth word in the following sentence from “mad” to “made”.

The original sentence: Also in 2011, Jenner mad an appearance in her sister's show, Khloe & Lamar when it debuted, and the series focused on Khloe Kardashian and her then husband Lamar Odam's personal life and relationship.

The corrected sentence: Also in 2011, Jenner made an appearance in her sister's show, Khloe & Lamar when it debuted, and the series focused on Khloe Kardashian and her then husband Lamar Odam's personal life and relationship. LaMonstera (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Formerly Humpries
when she was married to Kris Humpries, her name was Kim Kardashian Humpires. Since formerly West is in the article formerly Humpries should also be included. 2001:1C01:4205:BE00:DFCA:58DD:1BB7:FF7 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner
Caitlyn Jenner was Kim’s stepfather before and after transformation. 2600:4041:2C:300:441:7E14:BBF1:9EA5 (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

New Infobox image
Should the picture in the infobox be changed?


 * Support: The picture on the left, despite its high resolution, is 8 years old and no longer mirrors how the subject looks today. Plus, the lighting gives her a robotic vibe, which isn't really how she looks in person. On the right, the photo is also very high-quality and bright enough for readers to see her features clearly without veering into that cheap 80s model look. Seb.vv2221 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If we are arguing looks, I could argue just as well that her facelift and filtered skin on the right make her look uncanny, but I won't. The subject is perfectly recognizable in the older picture despite its age; the photo is well-centered, well-lit, and well-balanced; the background is neutral and high-contrast; her facial expression is natural and relaxed. In terms of quality, there's no comparison. The right picture isn't even a photograph, it's a visibly compressed and upscaled screengrab of an already compressed YouTube video. For all of these reasons, I'd argue that the left image is more so the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works when compared to the right one according to MOS:LEADIMAGE. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 09:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Give a choice between the two, I would go with the one posted here, hands down, for the reasons given by Throast. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to finding a better one than either of these two choices. Zaereth (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024
She dated Micheal Cera but it was extremely private because of Kanye. Thanks. Stickbugsleg (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Car crash
Is her totaling her car as a teenager really notable? The sentence sticks out like a sore thumb Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift is not mentioned once??
There is absolutely no mention of the Swift-Kardashian-West feud back in 2016 at all. There should at least be something regarding it, as it captivated the three of them during that time. Not to mention the fact that an entire album came out of that. Jwilli39 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * First I've heard of it, but then again I really don't follow either of them. The only reason this article is on my watchlist was from several requests at BLPN.


 * The thing is, we need to satisfy several criteria before it can be included. First, we need very reliable sources. Not tabloids and gossip columns but good sources. Then we need to weigh those against all the other sources about this subject to see just how much space it would deserve in this article. An entire section? A paragraph or two? A sentence or two? Or would even that be too much? An encyclopedia gives a brief summary of the subject, not in depth analyses, and summarizing by definition means cutting out unimportant details, and this is how we determine what is significant enough to include. If you want to do all that, you're most welcome to bring your sources here where it can be discussed. Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence of this can be seen in national news coverage, Taylor's documentary, in the Wikipedia article for Taylor, as well as in the article for Kanye's Song about Taylor.
 * I welcome someone else to write this section. Jwilli39 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. See: WP:RS. What we need are books, magazines, news articles. Things like that. See: WP:Secondary sources.


 * Wikipedia's goal is to provide the sum of all knowledge, not all knowledge, so then the question remains of WP:NPOV, in specific WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. That's especially important for celebrities, because so much trivial stuff gets written about them that we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. With all the sources about this subject, somehow I doubt the info would require an entire section, or even a whole paragraph, but I may be wrong.


 * Here, I'll help. It's really a basic math problem in figuring out percentages. Imagine you have a scale, with every source that has ever been written about the subject (not just the ones in the article, but every source) on one side, and the sources containing this info on the other. With this subject, I'd imagine the first side would be stacked halfway to the moon, while the other side just a handful. Are there enough sources to make 1%? 2%? 5% and you may have a paragraph. 10% might be worth a section. But that needs to be figured out by people who have read and are familiar with all the sources, which is not me. But first you'd have to bring us some sources. It's like self-serve around here. Zaereth (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do realize that. You don't have to tell me. It's also an option to go to those articles and pull the sources from them. Jwilli39 (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Just trying to help. In my experience it's always an option but not a very effective strategy. We're all volunteers here, so the pay is lousy. Like me, most people are just too damn lazy to do all the legwork ourselves. The burden is generally on the person who wants the info included to source it and write it. Only then will there be anything to really discuss. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024
Change "allowed" to "prompted" her to drop "West" as her last name. "Allowed" implies that there is some rule that a married woman must use her husband's last name and can only revert to her maiden name if divorced. Obviously, that is not true. A married woman can return to using her maiden name at any time, or can just not change it in the first place. Thank you. 69.131.153.214 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, a person can call themselves anything they like, but legally, you have to petition the court for a name change to be official. You have to do this when getting married, and when getting divorced, which is usually no problem because it's a normal part of the process. In other words, you can tell everybody to call you what you want, but what appears on your driver's license and social security card will only be your legal name. Now you can petition the court for a name change at any time, but outside of marriage and divorce it's a much more complicated process and there's always a risk you may be denied, so people getting divorced typically just wait and do it the easy way, but note that the sentence does refer to her legally changing her name.


 * Also, a woman is not required to revert back to her maiden name after a divorce. "Prompted" implies she was not planning a name change until the divorce had concluded, which would be a bit of mind reading on our parts, so I think "allowed" is better in this context. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How about, She subsequently dropped "West" as her legal last name? Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 09:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ 's suggestion. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)