Talk:Kim Kardashian/Archive 2

Pussy Cat Dolls
Why is Kim's time/performance with the Pussy Cat Dolls not mentioned anywhere here?
 * If you can find soures, then mention it. Tarheelz123 13:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

New Boutique vandalized
I was wondering whether it is relevant that her new Boutique was vandalized? There is a business section which mentions it, and the damage was said to be quite a bit.(http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=27) so yeah. RadioheadGossip (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * it was just spray "tagged" like three letters and Kim herself painted the area back to white.

Kim Kardashian
her mother is German Irish, not Dutch Scottish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tozos (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Bruce Jenner should be added as her relative on the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.104.100 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pornstar
When the thing you are most famous for is having sex on camera you are a porn star whether you get paid or not. She is nothing without Ray-J pumping that soft booty of hers on tape for the whole world to eventually see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.13.139 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How is she not classified as a pornstar? She had sex on film and sold it for $5 million. Oh, right, that just happened "accidentally." Mort99 (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because she didn't do it professionally.  Cra sh  Underride  22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pornstar shouldn't be added, because it wasn't a career choice. But I think that the sex tape incident should be included in her career, considering that it made her famous, and all of the subsequent T.V shows would not have come about without it. At least it shouldn't be buried at the bottom of the page, perhaps a mention in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.247.250 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * She almost certainly did it as a career choice since both of them were sort of failing and the production value and preparation of the video were a little too staged, but since it's not really something you can prove and Wikipedia does not rely on common sense alone, it has to be left out. - 76.20.10.117 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Album
Alright, even Kim herself has announced that she is working on an R&B album that comes out next year...where is it on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Travis Barker's Clothing Line
It is Famous Stars and Straps, NOT Stripes....didn't seem right to me. I checked a couple websites that sell his clothing for that. Jess10K (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Trip to Africa and other recommended edits / additions
Add to the end of the Careers section: In July 2009 Kim and her sister Khloe traveled to southern Africa on behalf of the Diamond Empowerment Fund, a non-profit international organization with the mission to raise money to support education initiatives that develop and empower economically disadvantaged people in African nations where diamonds are a natural resource (link: http://www.diamondempowerment.org/mission/). Kim said that it was "an experience I will never forget!" [19]*

Add to the Categories section: America's Next Top Model.

Add to the References section: [19]Reality TV Games Link:  http://www.rtvgames.com (27 August 2009). "Kim Kardashian on Fashion, ANTM Love and Giving Back." Link: http://www.rtvgames.com/showthread.php?t=21022.

* I think this is the correct reference note number, please change if necessary.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aga87 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP removal
I've removed the entire "Personal life" section, including its porn-tape sub-section, pursuant to WP:BLP, which requires removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material on living people. The following references (It is obstructive to refer to a ref by the number accompanying it in the article, since those numbers constantly change as refs are added or removed) were provided:
 * _ A:
 * _ B:
 * _ C:
 * _ D:
 * _ E:

The removal of the one i call ref B on this page is without prejudice: I removed the ref bcz as it stood it was not a usable reference, in that the content is not on-line and it may be hard to find back copies of GQ in libraries; the simplest thing to do should be finding an adequate substitute on line. Another straightforward remedy is quoting the relevant portions on this page for the purpose of supporting the discussion about whether it is an acceptable ref and whether it adequately supports the paraphrased version proposed for the article. (While the material is subject to copyright, fair use permits that.) That would include the portions stating
 * its author
 * the facts in question and
 * the source to which the author attributes those facts.

GQ is well enuf established that if the piece in question is other than in-print gossip, its attribution to a reputable source would create a presumption of accuracy. My reasoning for not replacing the GQ citation with a fact tag, as i might otherwise have, is twofold: As to the remaining refs from the removed material,
 * 1) There were three sentences and 4 or 5 assertions in the paragraph, and the two references, placed at the end of the 'graph, gave no indication as to which source (if either) attested to which assertion.
 * 2) The first, innocent sounding, assertion about marrying in 2000 not only didn't turn up in credible sources when i searched for an alternate source, but also was prefaced, in several of the gossip rags that make the claim, with words to the effect of "many people don't know this" -- i.e., "don't believe anyone who disagrees with this, they just don't know any better". At best, if many people don't know it, we have to establish plausible reasons why (in this case) a marriage would be kept secret, and find a basis for not giving the benefit of the doubt to the possibility that the reports of marriage are just a juicy libel that is hard to kill in light of the difficulty of proving a negative. From another angle, if so many people believe otherwise, why aren't we told, specifically, what convinced the writer to go against conventional wisdom? We would we be justified in suspecting carelessness -- or even disingenuous mock credulity, and are obligated to wait for real confirmation.
 * A is "All Headline News", and supports the top-most assertions with "Sources are saying..." and the deniability-providing "She had apparently admitted to OK! magazine that..." (We describe OK!s beat as "celebrity news" and "gossip", and it's known for implying the death of someone who was still clinging to life.)
 * C is TVGuide, but in a piece labeled as the gossip column.
 * D is the non-reassuring Hip Hop Press, and in any case merely reprinted the press release of a pornographer who had a vested interest the rumor and eventually paid $5 million to settle the suit that the press release insisted was unfounded.
 * E is the New York Post, which we note as being opinion-surveyed as as New York's
 * only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible
 * and the item in question is labeled "comment", has "gossip" as part of its URL on the Post's own web site, and impugns KK's motives in charging breach of privacy by quoting only the offending party. (Even if her motives should happen to be both disguised and accurately ID'd by the Post, what the Post says is clearly PoV speculation.)

The removed section seems like a candidate for illustrating the kind of crap-source BLP referencing that our policy is intended to crack down on! --Jerzy•t 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you are removing one of the biggest reasons why people search this site for this individual (i.e. her $5 million dollar sex tape) and replace it with...nothing? Are you worried about sources or trying to airbrush Ms. Kardashian's image ?  You need to say something about the incident and her personal life or you just aren't being that honest .  After all, do a search for Kim Kardashian on the internet and what does Wikipedia's own title line say?: "Biography of Kim Kardashian, with information about her career, personal life and sex tape(!)"  Thanks.  125.175.85.219 (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel any pressure to say anything more, at least until i have a chance to explain (beyond mentioning BLP again, and NPA) my striking thru and/or and de-shouting parts of your talk contrib. On the other hand, any time you spend studying the relevant WP policies would probably be productive. --Jerzy•t 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not edit other people's comments just because you don't like them, this includes striking parts through, since I gather from your comment you did it. Also if you don't have time to explain your changes DON'T do them until you do.Sergiacid (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

SINCE when a book, (magazine) considered to be NOT a acceptable reference? (be cause they are hard to find?! is this a joke?) if anything, any internet page can be a faulty, made-up reference. (so can be a book, tbh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.199.113 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jerzy your removal of half of article is not aceptable, especially the removal of sex tape section looks like you have an agenda here to clean up the subjects image. Two aspects need to be separated - 1. whether the fact is true and 2. the quality of references

ad 1. The fact that there is sex tape is beyond any doubt, I've seen it and a simple google search is more proof then anyone should need. Since the fact that there is a sex tape is unquestionable and is also one of the main reasons why this person is notable at all it has to be mentioned on the page. If you are unhappy with references, fix them, but removing an unquestionable and well know fact just because you don't like some references is not acceptable.

ad 2. Here is what you have to say about one of the references:
 * "I removed the ref bcz as it stood it was not a usable reference, in that the content is not on-line and it may be hard to find back copies of GQ in libraries;"

Your assertion that a magazine is not a usable reference because it is not easily available on-line is laughable, with such criteria most scientific publications from before 1950 would be struck down.Sergiacid (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sex Tape
With reference to the "leaked" sex tape, may I suggest we add the fact Little Miss Kardashian was just another aspiring socialite aggressively seeking fame and wasn't an established celebrity at the time. Just a thought. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a "fact." That's supposition.    RGTraynor  09:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to add the word interracial into a descripion of the sex tape. Smokey joes cafe (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot understand any reason to add the term "interracial" here. Simply because two people are of different racial backgrounds does not qualify its use. Defining the tape with this term gives it an odd Undue emphasis with can be seen as borderline racism. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with CactusWriter. The fact that it was an interracial liaison has no bearing on its notability.  Please indicate why, specifically, you wish to include this adjective.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, this was notbale because of the interracial natureKingroodney (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know the interraciality of it didn't really factor into it as much as the fact that it was two "celebrities" who had a tape leaked. I'm no expert on it but I've never really heard the interracial aspect of it played up or focused on.  Using the term "interracial" here would give it undue weight.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the only interracial film of its kind, it differs from all other celebrity sex tapes because Kim Kardashian's sex tape is interracial. Kingroodney (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what made it infamous though. It was the fact that there were two "celebrities" involved.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  00:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

She was hardly a celebrity before the tape, more like armenian celebuspawn. Kingroodney (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We agree about that, but the reason the tape was a sensation was not because it was an interracial tape.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am changing the title of the section to 'Sex Tape'. 'Sex Tape Scandal' seems odd, as there is no element of scandal involved; she was dating the guy. Ncsaint (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote to include Interracial as an adjective in the description. Ron Pattinson (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: the above user has been blocked for being a sockpuppet.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war
I've been watching the tussle between GFHandel and Hoponpop69, and am tempted to intervene on an administrative level, but it isn't quite clear enough of a dispute for me to do so. Per WP:LEAD, a lead summarizes the complete article. It's clear from the article and other discussion on this page that her initial rise to fame was the sex tape, and that the sex tape continues to be a major source of the public's interest in her. What argument is there that a summary of her career could be complete without including mention of the tape? What justification is there for reverting Hoponpop69's edits? It certainly isn't length, as the lead is trivially short compared the the recommended four paragraph lead. It certainly isn't lack of sourcing, so WP:BLP doesn't apply.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "It's clear from the article and other discussion on this page that her initial rise to fame..." however it's not what gets said on this talk page that matters. What matters is what gets reported by reliable secondary sources, and so far no one has presented a reliable secondary source indicating that the tape is well-known enough to be mentioned in the lede. This is something that Hoponpop69 accepted almost a week ago when he made an edit with an edit summary "if thats not notable enough to be in the intro paragraph neither should these..", so why do you comment on this now when the debate and edits over the lede were finalised days ago and everything has settled down?
 * I'm hoping that you (and the community here) will now recognise that Hoponpop69 has an ulterior adgenda when he makes an edit designed to bring the tape section to greater prominence in the Controversies section—but disguises his intent by not mentioning it in the edit summary.
 * BTW, it's not just me who has been involved in trying to get Hoponpop69 to follow the conventions mandated by WP for WP:BLP articles. Another editor warned Hoponpop69 to stop edit warring against several editors, and gave sage advice about taking his issues to this talk page for community assessment (something he has chosen not to attempt).
 * Thanks for asking though. GFHandel &#9836; 04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From the article: "She first rose to substantial fame in February 2007 when she appeared in a sex tape with R&B singer Ray J" and "In February 2007, a home sex video that she made with singer Ray J in 2003[58] was leaked.[59] Vivid Entertainment bought the rights for $1 million and released the film as Kim Kardashian: Superstar on February 21.[59] Kardashian sued Vivid for ownership of the tape. In late April 2007, Kardashian dropped the suit and settled with Vivid Entertainment for $5 million.[60]". From WP:LEAD, the lead should "explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." How could her initial rise to fame not be considered important or interesting? How could a $5 million dollar lawsuit not be considered important or interesting? It would seem that the distastefulness of the subject is influencing the decision, and that's not a legitimate point of consideration.
 * As for why I brought it up now, it's because I saw you reverting Hoponpop69 again, and, as before, your reversion didn't seem particularly well justified.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your original post here today was obviously in response to my revert here today (following it by 43 minutes), however your post doesn't touch on the issue of today's edits. What it does touch on is an issue that was settled almost a week ago—and the community here is obviously comfortable with the outcome (including Hoponpop69 who has desisted in that area).
 * Thanks for providing the quote "She first rose to substantial fame...", but have you read the reference "supporting" that claim at the end of the sentence? The text at that tabloid site does not mention "substantial", "tape" or "fame", and that is a huge no-no in a BLP. Why not join those of us who are trying to protect WP's reputation by making sure that unsupportable information is not introduced by those who merely wish to titillate? I will now remove the information you allude to in the article because such unsupported detail in a BLP is a travesty at WP.
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to it, and I apologise for not having noticed the oversight earlier. GFHandel &#9836; 04:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the tape is the lead is valid. I have no problem with that. My problem lies with the wording and the warring, but I've chosen to take a back seat on it because neither "side" is coming out well from this &, frankly, the Kardashian "machine" just irks me too much after months of trying to control vandalism/POV pushing in general on this family's articles. GFHandel could have started the talk page discussion just as well as Hoponpop, since GFH has pretty much being doing tit-for-tat reverts throughout.
 * A formula along the lines of "Prior to the development of her career as a reality TV star, Kardashian had been the subject of a sex tape that subsequently resulted in a court awarding her $X for damages/sale of rights/whatever" should be enough to summarise the point, and it need not have a citation at all because the info is cited in the body of the article. - Sitush (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would seem about the right level of emphasis.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (To Kww:) By what source would that "seem about the right level of emphasis"? There's more in the article about her activism, but I don't see anyone trying to introduce that into the lede.
 * I'm not convinced that the tape in the lede is valid (and I'm leaning to support your view that such material "is still undue weight etc in the lead"). The tape seems well known to some of the editors in this parts, but whether it is well known to the millions who watch her television shows is a matter for speculation—until a reliable secondary source or two states otherwise.
 * Look, I'm definitely no fan of the Kardashian machine, but this article has as much right to adhere to the principles of WP:BLP as any other. I believe that the lede currently summarises events for what she is well known (I hate to say famous), and the tape is mentioned in the article (including an easy-to-get-to link in the contents box for those destined for those parts).
 * I have only acted in accordance with WP guidelines and policy, and feel it is concomitant on those wishing to introduce such lede detail in a WP:BLP to raise it on the talk page (especially after they have been requested to do so:, , and )—and I'm not the only editor who has now requested that. Remember that this is a BLP, so: protect first, discuss second, edit third. Can we move on until something else comes to light? GFHandel &#9836; 05:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing preventing someone adding a comment to the lead with regard to her activism. The stuff is in the article and can be summarised. - Sitush (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Leads are supposed to summarize the article, not "what someone is famous for". You seem to want activism in the lead, so I'll go add it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I wanted "activism in the lede", so why would you write that? As you pointed out, the lede is supposed to summarize the most important points. What I have been pointing out is that there is no reliable secondary source that confirms that the tape is "important"—and no one here has addressed that point.
 * As we are currently having a discussion (that hasn't even been going for three hours), and because I have addressed every one of your concerns, I'm staggered that you have edited the article during the discussion. Why have you edited the article to introduce material that is under discussion? Material that has no consensus to be included in the lede? At least Hoponpop69 had the decency to attempt to find supporting sources that the tape was important, but I'm just stunned that an admin doesn't want to even attempt that. Remember that your whole basis for wanting to introduce the tape into the lede was your quote from the article which began "She first rose to substantial fame...". That quote is no longer in the article because it wasn't supported by the source (which wasn't anywhere near what WP would consider a reliable source). What is your hurry to edit, and why have you not addressed the concerns raised during this discussion?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 06:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GFHandel asked me to take a look at this. I've read the discussion and the article; is it fair to sum up that you are arguing about the precise content of the lead paragraph? --John (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two concerns, actually. First was that the lead didn't make any effort to summarize the content of the article. When I looked at it more carefully, there also seemed to be a desire to push negative material towards the bottom of the article. I restructured it to be in chronological order, without artificially distinguishing "career", "activism", and "controversy", and then wrote the lead to actually summarize the resulting article. There's still substantial room to expand the lead if anyone feels that some of the material that I failed to include should be added.
 * As for GFHandel's assertion that I have somehow failed to find that the tape was "important", I have a problem understanding how a $5M judgement could be considered both unimportant and uninteresting. The only source required is to demonstrate that the judgement existed, and that was already in the article. As I said above, if you feel it is now too prominent, feel free to further expand the lead to counterbalance.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the actual wording in the first paragraph of WP:LEAD is "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". When Kww first edited here, the reason given for including information in the lede was based on the sentence in the article "She first rose to substantial fame in February 2007 when she appeared...", however (based on trivial inspection) that sentence was quickly discredited and removed. Kww, why did you base your position on a sentence that was not supported by the source cited at the end of the sentence? You found that sentence important enough to use as evidence, but upon it's justified removal you didn't find any need to soften your position or allow debate to continue? Why? And that's the main problem with this sort of article—the people who want to introduce bias into the article (for whatever reason) are very slap-shod with sources (e.g. any old source will do if in a hurry and some "evidence" is needed).
 * Second, it's simply not relevant as to what Kww has a problem with. What is important is that there are reliable secondary sources that state that the tape is important. That is something no one here managed to provide (however I do understand how the tape seems to be important to those who would like it to be important). The lede is not a dumping ground for cut-down versions of every part of an article.
 * I would still like to understand how it is fair that someone can come here (for the first time) and simply make changes to a contentious part of an article while debate about the issue is happening? Remember that we are not talking about taking out contentious material in a BLP (something I would support); rather, we are talking about adding contentious material to the lede of a BLP. So what is the rush? I would also like to understand what has happened to "consensus" and "debate" in this neck of the woods? "Consensus" is not a vote, and "debate" was on-going when it was effectively ended by one editor. If we all discussed things for a few days, and came to the current state of the lede, then that would be one thing; but to hammer one version home while debate is on-going is not in the best tradition of the processes at WP.
 * If someone one day would like to address WP:Undue about the lede, please let me know and I will be happy to support (or at least discuss it until consensus is reached).
 * GFHandel &#9836; 20:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are both right. I see this as how articles are built. I appreciate KWW's efforts to reorganise the article and I also appreciate GFHandel's attention to ensure we comply with BLP. I think I know both of you and I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia. I encourage you to see each other's attempts in good faith as I certainly do. If you would like to post two versions and set up an RFC to decide between them, I would be happy to assist. I really don't see that as necessary at this point. Please, be kind to each other and work on a compromise. --John (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping here. Don't you feel the onus is on the editors wanting to add information to the lede of a BLP to demonstrate that the information is important to the article (e.g. via reliable secondary sources)? GFHandel &#9836; 23:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. It's not a case of adding content to the article, which certainly needs sourcing. The question is whether the lead adequately summarizes the article, and whether the information can reasonably be considered important and interesting. As for "interesting", it's certainly abnormal, which usually is what provokes interest. As for "important", it's pretty rare that people win $5M settlements, so it would normally be considered important. The lead now mentions most of the article's high points. It mentions the series, the tape, the clothing, the Armenian activism, and the short marriage. I think it could use a bit more expansion.
 * As for "consensus", you have been reverting another editor for some time, and, when I mentioned it, the first (and so far only) other comment was that the tape that Hoponpop69 was trying to mention more prominently probably deserved mention in the lead. That suggestion was from a more frequent article editor. WP:BRD is the normal editing cycle, but I would suggest that you have reverted mention of the tape often enough that you probably shouldn't be the one reverting. At this point, I've taken a clear content stance, though, so you shouldn't fear any kind of administrative action from me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see this as an editorial decision, subject to consensus rather than reliable sourcing. Would you like some other opinions? Via project talk perhaps? --John (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Kww's reference to my opinion, I should point out that most of my edits to this article have been of the anti-vandal or anti-POV variety, plus some copyediting of content added by people with limited attention spans and an inability to write "English" prose in a style other than that found on Twitter. I really do not give a fig about the subject matter and, indeed, if articles such as this did not exist then I would lose no sleep. However, since they do exist, I do what I can to keep the things in order without affecting my sanity.
 * I get the feeling that GFH may be reading policy/guidelines a little too literally - perhaps even at the single-word level, in some cases - but appreciate that their intent is good and that there certainly has been a lot of egregiously worded content here. I'd like to think that the issue could be resolved without resort to the wider community but if that route does prove necessary then would WP:DR be the correct venue? The issue is out of scope for WP:3O. - Sitush (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead should establish notability and summarise its most important aspects; her recognition of the Armenian genocide isn't exactly complying with this strategy, and the body only covers two sentences of this which is far too little. For these reasons I am removing it. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your logic. With or without the activism, the lead already establishes notability. How have you determined that her outspoken position regarding the genocide, which connects to her roots, is not "important"? I should imagine that it is to Armenian people and to those who committed the alleged genocide. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not understand my logic, that is not my problem. Taken directly from WP:LEDE: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points. Now apply it to the activism. Does it explain or identify why Kardashian is notable? Does is summarise the most important points of the article? The answer is: no. - Till I Go Home (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you are misreading WP:LEDE. The lead has to establish notability: it does. The lead has to summarise the most important points: my query is how one determines what is important. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the lead does establish notability. And the current lead is fine. My point is that the activism is not worthy of inclusion there because it is hardly discussed in the article itself, and WP:LEDE clearly says it should "summarize the most important points". Till I Go Home (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha! I've just spotted something that perhaps should be in the article (I've never bothered trying to find sources for this article before). See this from 14 April 2011 and contrast with what the article currently says about her actions on 21 April. Obviously, we should not connect dots because it would be synthesis but perhaps we should be noting that a week prior to her blog/tweet stuff there was an incident which caused Armenian groups to get upset with her? - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a bad idea, and it's up to you if you want to include in the article as you found the source. By the way, have we both agreed that the whole activism thing shouldn't be in the lead? Till I Go Home (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I raised a query. Right now, I have no opinion as such. I'll wait for other input and do some digging around in between times. It is not exactly the most urgent thing on my to do list, since I am supposed to be mediating a content dispute relating to the dreaded Indian caste system. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I already answered the query; something is determined "important" (by important, I am assuming you are referring to worthy of inclusion in the lead) if the point in question (in this case, activism) is discussed substantially in the article with multiple reliable sources, and if the point explains why the subject in question (Kardashian) is notable. In this case, activism doesn't identify notability or isn't discussed significantly. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are confusing notability and importance etc again. Anyway, let's see what others say. I am not going to base an opinion just on your response, in particular because (as I have said before) I do not particularly frequent this type of article. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, this is what WP:LEDE follows; notability and importance. ...explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points. Till I Go Home (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sectioning
This edit adjusts the article, reasoning that we are not supposed to mix personal life with career. I've never seen that said before - please can someone link to that policy or guideline. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the edit referred to above until the matter is cleared up. Working on historical biographies, as I do, may perhaps be the cause of my uneasiness about the edit rationale, in which case you can take my apology as read. Similarly, since I tend to prefer my news from a century or so ago, any other non-vandal related contributions that I make to this article most likely reflect someone who might regard Jack the Ripper as the last real celebrity & could therefore be out of touch! - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's certainly no policy forbidding mixing, and I prefer them mixed. If they aren't, editors wind up making value judgments. In this case, it was trying to decide whether the tape was a career move or a controversy that pushed my hand. There was dispute over the appropriate section in the history, and I don't think it's a call any of us have to make.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just plain silly! At least change the name of the section to "Life and career", where it covers both aspects of the topic. You can't leave personal life information under the "Career" section, it just doesn't make sense. Also what you prefer is irrelevant. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, if there is no policy/guideline then I think that personal preferences do come into it at article level. Obviously, not the preference of any one individual but certainly a consensus. I see your point about the heading, by the way, although doubtless some would claim (have claimed!) that the latest marriage was a career move. I have no opinion on that. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct, there is no policy or guideline. However, BLPs are typically written with such styles as:
 * a) with a "Life and career" section, where the person in question has their early life, personal life and career information discussed under one entire section, or
 * b) with separate sections such as "early life", "career" and "personal life", where the appropriate information is covered under such sections.


 * Currently, this BLP is following neither styles. Surely two editors sharing similar views cannot be deemed 'consensus'. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that the heading has now been changed. That seems to be a reasonable compromise, bearing in mind your own points @ 04:57 and 05:59. I had not actually stated an opinion myself, nor was I claiming that two people constituted consensus, but the situation as it now appears seems to me to be a reasonable solution. Let's see what others think over the next few hours (or perhaps days, given that my suspicion is activity will be on the low side today). - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have also put the early life section under the main section, per point a). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Petition
I recently kiboshed an edit request to insert a wall of text about a petition for E! to boycott Kardashian shows (see thread above). Since then, the petition has closed with 180,000 signatories, and someone popped up here to point out that it had garnered more news coverage than was apparent at the time of the request.

The article currently says "A widely circulated petition asking to remove all Kardashian related programing off the air has been followed since their split." Did the petition have any effect? Is 180k really a notable figure? Is there any decent verification that it was "widely circulated"? How significant are e-petitions in the Twitter/Facebook age?

I really struggle with showbiz-type BLPs because they rely so much on sources that appear to have a local consensus for use in these contexts (blogs, gossip columns, tabloid-type newspapers etc) but which would be rejected on sight in other articles. I realise that this probably reflects the natural habitat (and hunting ground) of the modern "celebrity" but would be grateful if anyone was aware of a formalised statement of consensus for using this type of thing. Without such sources, of course, many articles of this type would be reduced to stubs. Sitush (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeline versus topic sectioning in career section
I recently moved a large body of text out of the "2003-2007" section, and moved it into the "2008-2010: modeling and retail" section because it deals with Kim's movie and television career that occurred after 2008. To preserve the integrity of the subheading I have changed it to "Modeling, Movies, and Retail" (using the Harvard Comma). I also included a subnote about her cameo in "Deep in the Valley" along with a citation. I have made this change without knowing what the community consensus is regarding these sub-categories, but believe that if we are going to preserve a timeline sectioning we need to keep things in the proper place unless the community wishes to do away with the timeline format and establish a category style sectioning (ex: "film and movies" "socialite activities" "modeling and retail"). Just wanted to give transparancy to the edit since I am not a member of the Kardashian wikipedia community.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2012
Please change the caption underneath the last photo from "Style Your Sim" to "Style Your Slim" because there is no such thing as "Style Your Sim" and it says "Style Your Slim" in the background of the picture. I know this sounds really dumb, but it was bothering me. :P

174.112.197.192 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. A search for "Style Your Sim" turned up nothing noteworthy, while a "Style Your Slim" search showed more images of her being at an event with that name. Acalamari 17:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2012
"Kardashian was a friend of Paris Hilton, who introduced her to the socialite scene" should come before "February 2007, a home sex video that she made with singer Ray J in 2003[10] was leaked.[11] Vivid Entertainment bought the rights for $1 million and released the film as Kim Kardashian: Superstar on February 21.[11] Kardashian sued Vivid for ownership of the tape. In late April 2007, Kardashian dropped the suit and settled with Vivid Entertainment for $5 million.[12]" because Kim Kardashian was first noted from being Paris Hilton's friend in the eyes of the paparazzi and the sex tape came out a year later. The sex tape did make her famous to a crowd bigger than the paparazzi which is the rest of the world and that is when her show keeping up with the kardashians started. It should say this, "In 2006, she hit the hollywood social scene with her childhood friend Paris Hilton and she was well liked by the paparazzi. But then in February 2007, a home video she made was leaked... etc. "Her first acting role was in the television series Beyond the Break." should come in the 2007-2010 section because she did that after keeping up with the kardashian aired and the movie she was in disaster movie. it should go after "Kardashian starred in the 2008 disaster film spoof Disaster Movie as Lisa,[19] and appeared in the How I Met Your Mother episode "Benefits"." it seems like everything in her wiki is not in order so someone should edit some of them and put them in order.

71.189.138.141 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to change it if you can source a 2006 date for the "socialite scene" information.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deactivated the template. Please reactivate it when you have responded to Kww's request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

First Television Acting Role
Under 2003-2007, it states, "Her first acting role was in the television series Beyond the Break." IMDb does not credit Kardashian as being in the television program until 2009 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448950/fullcredits#cast). Shouldn't this sentence be moved to the subsequent section (i.e., 2007–2010: Modeling and retail)? Or shouldn't the sentence be modified to indicate the year she appeared in Beyond the Break? As it reads, the sentence implies that she was acting on television prior to 2009.

Volcanorex (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wedding
the wedding headline needs to be bigger, it was the only essential issue that only covered about 2 lines.75.171.14.76 (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

porn star
Why is "porn star" not included in the first sentence along with "socialite, celebutante" and the rest? I added it and it was immediately deleted because it was, according to the message I received, "defamatory". Explain to me how this is defamatory or untrue, considering that she is, in fact, a porn start -- she starred in, and profited from, a porn movie! Or is Kim Kardashian a sacred cow to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinspoiler (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A leaked home sex video does not a porn star make. Content in Wikipedia articles must be substantiated by reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2012
After multiple seasons of The Kardashians and spin-offs to add to the documentation of Kim Kardashian’s life, Kim and Kris Take Divorce should be the next to premier Sunday nights on E! Regardless if it takes on its own show or not, Saturday Night Live surely was not going to let the reality television star’s divorce go un-critiqued. The Saturday Night Live parody of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries' divorce was a strong social critique because it raises awareness to Kim Kardashian’s lack of value towards the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is defined as, “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. The gay community has come a long way in recent years. Even though a wide range of countries world-wide still restrict same-sex marriages, they are now legally allowed in Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden. Many within the gay community envy the idea that opposite sex couples are able to legally marry since they are unable to even have the legalization of their marriage, let alone a celebration and ceremony. The spectacle of Kardashian’s engagement and actual marriage to Humphries was colossal to the point of being able to make a profit. The marriage was documented on the hit reality show, taking up two episodes dedicated to “Kim’s Fairytale Wedding”. The entire process, from pre-engagement to honeymoon was publicized for the world to view showing how “happy ever after” the couple lead to be excited and prepared for. It was no shock that uproar rose after the news of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries’ divorce spread. The 72-day marriage, costing ten million dollars was not taken lightly within the gay community and same-sex marriage activists. A parody produces a comical, overstated imitation of an event, individual, artist or genre. Saturday Night Live is known to create parodies and brilliantly does just as a parody is described. They produce a video parody of Kim Kardashian (including Kim’s siblings, mother, step-father and ex-husband) talking about her divorce. The parody includes lines such as, “All week we’ve been just crying and crying and posing and crying” and “Things are looking up for me — I’m single and there’s an NBA lockout”. These two particular lines are significant to the meaning of the parody because it mocks how the Kim Kardashian is driven by self-publicity and comically mocks how she does not value the sanctity of marriage. By critically analyzing the entire parody, it is raising awareness to the issues surrounding marriage rights by exaggerating the imitation of the Kardashians and Kris Humphries. Christine Harold discusses parody in her article, Pranking Rhetoric: “Culture Jamming” as media activism”. She writes, “a parody derides the content of what it sees as oppressive rhetorical but fails to attend to its patterns”. Saturday Night Live is a popular show on air and therefore, similar to a popular celebrity being able to influence society, the material performed on Saturday Night Live is influential over society through the show’s popularity. The parody of Kim Kardashian’s divorce did however have some weaknesses. No outside party can truthfully say that they know all of the details, feelings and events that occur between a married couple and therefore, especially when involving a celebrity, false rumors and assumptions are easily made for the material of the parody. When mocking, imitating and making fun of an individual with false information or merely based on assumptions, the parodist risk looking unprofessional and unreliable. Since Saturday Night Live is a credible source of entertainment and critique, it is important for them to keep their reputation up to standards. Other figures of celebrity critique and parodists such as Perez Hilton, who runs a website of celebrity news and his comedic opinions of them are strong competitors able to become more popular, more credible of celebrity information and much more comical. This being said. It is important for Saturday Night Live to keep their reputation of credible information on top of maintaining entertaining parodies that audiences enjoy watching.

24.141.102.36 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Attempt 2: Edit Request March 31 2012: Adding information to page: 2010–present: marriage, divorce and other ventures
Original: In April 2010, Kardashian sparked controversy over the way she held a cat for a photograph.[43] The same year, animal rights organization PETA criticized Kardashian for repeatedly wearing fur coats, and named her as one of the five worst people or organizations of 2010 when it came to animal welfare.[44] In June 2010, The Guardian commented on her ability to attract payments of up to US$10,000 from sponsors for each tweet that she broadcasts.[45]

Edit suggestion: In April 2010, Kardashian sparked controversy over the way she held a cat for a photograph.[43] The same year, animal rights organization PETA criticized Kardashian for repeatedly wearing fur coats, and named her as one of the five worst people or organizations of 2010 when it came to animal welfare.[44] '''On March 22nd 2012, Kardashian was “flour bombed” on the red carpet for the launch of her new fragrance, True Reflection. An unhappy protester doused the star in a white powder as she walked passed, and called the star “lousy fur hag.” The police and fire departments were called in to identify the white powder, but it was found to be cooking flour. The protester was arrested and detained, but released without charges. The attack was reportedly in protest of Kardashian’s support of fur products. Animal activist group PETA denies being involved with the attack, yet has agreed to pay for legal fees. --Zazulam (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)''' In June 2010, The Guardian commented on her ability to attract payments of up to US$10,000 from sponsors for each tweet that she broadcasts.[45]

Please note: the bolding of the text is only to indicate what section has been added.
 * that all appears to be excessive detail. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Revised change: '''On March 22nd 2012, Kardashian was “flour bombed” on the red carpet for the launch of her new fragrance, True Reflection. An unhappy protester doused the star in a white powder as she walked passed, and called the star “lousy fur hag.” The protester was arrested and detained, but released without charges. Animal activist group PETA denies being involved with the attack, yet has agreed to pay for legal fees. -- talk

Education?
I came here to find out about her education level. There's no mention of her education level?? This should be included, even if only to say "she lacks education," or "highest level attained was secondary school," or whatever. --72.47.85.22 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "Ongoing Controversies" Section
How can you have an article about Kim Kardashian and not note the ongoing cultural controversy over her and her show? I put in three comments about her by noted actors from the last six months. I could also put in Howard Stern's commentary about her (but whom doesn't he dislike?) or the mocking of her at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner. She's something akin to a cultural joke, and not putting this in the article is frankly ridiculous.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You see, the trouble with motivations based on words like "cultural joke" is that WP has to define and support what that is (especially in a WP:BLP). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be something in the article along the lines you propose, however we have to be very careful about opening the floodgates for reproducing every minor (or major) Hollywood celebrity's opinion (I can see your section growing without limit in time). Remember that such celebrities will find willing reporters because such gossipy comments are popular, however there are obviously an awful lot of her fans (of which I'm not one) who have no such outlet (see WP:UNDUE). Can you propose text here that states the issue succinctly (with as many references following the text as you like)? I also find the proposed section heading "Ongoing Controversies" to be a tad pejorative. Is "Cultural controversy" better, or should the information be within a generic "Controversies" section? However please remember that WP's job is to reproduce BLP information that is commensurate with real-world facts—and of course be based on reliable sources. Anyhow, let's see what others say. GFHandel &#9836; 00:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, Maestro. The prominent people who have thrown brickbats at Miss Kardashian are legion, and include the President of the United States. As for rewording the skinny on the "Cultural Controversy", I wouldn't know where to begin! She's beyond satire, let alone scholarly contemplation.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Really?
'In April 2010, Kardashian sparked controversy over the way she held a cat for a photograph.' I realise that she's pretty much the epitome of the famous for being famous nonentity that passes for 'celebrity' these days, but that line strikes me as incredibly trivial, even for her. Gosh, she held a cat the wrong way. Someone call the cops. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

She was in a Music Video for FOB
Kim Kardashian was featured on music video by the Fall Out Boy for their song Thnks Fr Th Mmrs. The song was released in 2007 and the music video was also released in 2007. The page for song shows that she was in the video but Kim's info page doesn't show this information.

For reference, you can check out this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thnks_fr_th_Mmrs

Thanks

74.111.195.56 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for page references Mdann52 (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2578007/otherworks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.245.27 (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Like Wikipedia, IMdB is not considered a reliable source. Please look for an independent, secondary source with a reputation for fact-checking and content that isn't user-generated. If you're unsure about the reliability of a given source, you can post a query here. Rivertorch (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not many secondary sources can be found that directly mention Kim Kardashian's portrayal in the music video. I'm not sure about the "reputation for fact-checking" of the following sources, but these are the best that can be found:

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2007/fall-out-boy-works-with-chimps-in-thanks-for-the-memories/ (Probably the most independent) http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/kim-kardashian/bio/292941 (Under "Fast facts") http://www.people.com/people/kim_kardashian/0,,,00.html (Under "Fun facts")

Or then there's the primary source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onzL0EM1pKY

Otherwise, by the above reasoning requiring a secondary source, shouldn't her mention also be removed from the "Thnks fr th Mmrs" wiki?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.245.27 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the mentions in TV Guide and People should suffice. Now you can write the text you'd like to add and say where exactly in the article you think it should go. (And please sign your talk page posts by typing four consecutive tildes (i.e., ~ ). Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I switched the answered to yes for now until the entry request is posted. To the IP, switch it back to no once you have what you would like to be added to the article. — cyberpower  Chat Limited Access  14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Remove "celebutante" from the article header. Whether or not she is a celebutante (famous for being famous) is unverifiable (unless you have a source that shows that she is a self proclaimed celebutante) and is only a matter of gossip and controversy. The assumption is clearly not NPOV. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ The claim is unsourced and doesn't recur in the body of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable
Is she really worthy of a Wikipedia article? As far as I am aware, she has done nothing that makes her notable. Yes, she features in the tabloids and celebrity magazines, but Wikipedia is not the news and I fail to see how idle tittle tattle makes her article-worthy. We should seek to restore an air of respectability to Wikipedia, by deleting this monstrosity. --85.210.65.44 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course she is. You're using the common definition of the word notable, but on Wikipedia we use an idiosyncratic definition, which you can read at WP:Notability. The short version is that subjects which have been covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources are generally presumed notable. We don't make value judgments about whose work is or isn't "important"; if we did that, for instance, I'd argue that more than 80% of the articles on sports stars, along with 90% of the articles on high schools, should be deleted. Luckily for the good of the encyclopedia, my own personal opinions aren't what counts. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sex at 14
I wanted to add a bit to her bio regarding her recent interview on Oprah in which Kim said that her mom was totally cool with her having sex at 14 and, so, her mom got her birth control pills. Kww and someone else said no and removed the edit. I think it is relevant because she is ONLY famous on account of her sexual behavior and the fact that she was having sex at 14 - and her mom was cool with that - is relevant background info. But this info shows how she grew into the person she is today and how her mother has totally supported her behavior. Here is a video of that interview. http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2012/06/18/kim-kardashians-oprah-confession-mom-kris-jenner-let-me-have-sex-at-14/ Stranded Pirate (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, wP:BLP applies to talk pages. Do not make disparaging comments about living people. I've had to strip out half of your post. Additionally, do not post, here or in the article, information based on gossip rags. Regarding the actual issue, well, the comments I redacted tell the story: you think there's something wrong with Kardashian's life, and you want to use some offhanded commenting in one specific interview to prove what "caused" her current behavior. That, however, is entirely your original research. Did she state in that interview that her mother giving her birth control resulted in her having a sex tape? Did any recognized expert say it? If not, it doesn't belong in the article. Even if someone did, I'm not sure it meets WP:DUE to include it anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * i was not aware that Oprah Winfrey was a gossip rag. Neither is the NY Daily News.  Say my thoughts on this are original research is like saying its original research when I say that stove is hit.  Girl wants to have sex with a man at 14.  Mom says that is okay and also buys her birth control pills.  Girl goes on to make sex tape (which, some say, her mother helped her with).  Girl becomes famous for sex and sexy actions, and gets rich. A + B + C = ...what? Stranded Pirate (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A + B + C = A + B + C. Substituting another letter on one side of the equation would be synthesis, which does indeed fall afoul of the policy on original research. Rivertorch (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the flip side, these kind of reports are equally why I resist efforts to ghettoize things into sections labeled "controversy" and "personal life". With Kardashian, I don't think we have adequate sourcing to fairly judge which parts of her life are strictly personal and which parts are career moves.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not here to judge. It's honestly irrevelant when she began having sex. It didn't affect her life and shouldn't affect the article. She didn't become pregnant, didn't become noticable because of having sex at 14 and didn't have any affect other than "she had sex". Unless her having sex had some affect on her life (which can be attritubed to a proper source) or her notability, there's no point in adding it to to the article. Gorgak25 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)