Template:Did you know nominations/Kim Kardashian, Superstar

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template||}}
 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}}

Kim Kardashian, Superstar

 * ... that the sex tape of Kim Kardashian and Ray J was bought by Vivid Entertainment for $1 million? Source:
 * Alt 1: ... that the pornographic film of Kim Kardashian and Ray J was bought by Vivid Entertainment for $1 million? Source:
 * Reviewed: Kirby

Created by Vistadan (talk). Nominated by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) at 14:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The archived hiphoppress.com source seems historically valuable (within the context of Kim Kardashian's life story), but I doubt we can take its claims at face value. The source is a press release by Vivid Entertainment published on hiphoppress.com, with the site acting as a newswire. Vivid, of course, acquired and distributed the tape, making them a primary (and likely unreliable) source. There is also conflicting information: per the article, Ian Halperin has alleged that Kim and her mother leaked the tape to Vivid, which sounds like it conflicts with Vivid's narrative of purchasing it from a third party.
 * So we have two apparently conflicting versions of events: either a third party sold the tape to Vivid for a million dollars, or the Kardashians leaked it to Vivid themselves. Both versions of events are disputed. I don't know what the basis for Halperin's claims are, but I know Vivid is not a disinterested secondary source—they're an involved party with a likely conflict of interest. I think it would be better to develop an alternate hook, and the article itself could be bulked up with more info. For instance, I imagine there are sources out there providing details about the tape's commercial success? —BLZ · talk 00:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A drive-by comment, but I strongly suggest that the hook be reworded due to BLP concerns, and also because Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you propose the hook be changed to? I've added an alt that changes "sex tape" to "pornographic film" if that was the BLP concern? Vistadan 14:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose that might be a better option, but it might still be too "tabloidy" for my tastes. Pinging reviewer for their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think using the term "sex tape" is probably OK, honestly. It may sound colloquial or even inappropriate, but it does accurately describe the contents or "genre" of the tape, since "celebrity sex tape" is its own distinct category of porn. "Pornographic film", on the other hand, may sound more formal but is starched of all meaning and specificity. Plus it may even misleadingly suggest that the tape was made in a "professional" production context, which could be a BLP concern in the opposite direction: a "pornographic film" is filmed with the intention that it will be distributed, and we don't want to suggest that a video filmed in a private setting was professionally "produced" (it wasn't) or that it was planned to be distributed at the time of filming (it doesn't seem that way, but that's apparently in dispute at the least).
 * My issue is more about the questionable grounding of the "fact" in the hook. It's not wrong to say, in the article, that Vivid claimed to have paid $1 million for the tape. It's true that they made that claim, and the cited press release is adequate . But there is a dispute about what really happened (according to the Halperin book, anyway), and the hook relies on a primary source from an involved party with a conflict-of-interest as to how the events are represented, i.e., the press release is not an objective secondhand account of "what really happened". Based on the various sources in the article at the moment and the conflicting accounts, I would not be comfortable using any fact about what happened leading up to the tape's distribution.
 * On the other hand, I'm not sure which alternate "fact" from the article I would choose for a hook at present. What I do suspect is that the article subject matter is big enough that it could be expanded. It is, after all, one of the most notorious videos of the last 20 years, and one that eventually propelled Kim to an almost unprecedented level of superstardom in the history of celebrity culture. It's been discussed and written about endlessly, which means there must be a sturdier fact out that could be used. For example, just off the top of my head as a Kanye fan, I recall that his line "My girl a superstar all from a home movie" from "Clique" is an allusion to the tape (see e.g. ). I'm sure Kanye's mentioned it elsewhere, whether in his lyrics or in interviews or both. There's also Ray J's "I Hit It First". Neither of those songs are mentioned in this article, which means there's more to talk about and more that could be used as a hook out there. —BLZ · talk 20:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Will you be able to address the concerns raised by ? It has been almost two months since this nomination began. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you still be able to continue this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , i will work on it.___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   00:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * CAPTAIN MEDUSA, it has been over two weeks since you said you would work on it, and nothing has yet been done, though you have been quite active on Wikipedia in the meantime. We are happy to allow you another seven days to make good progress on the issues raised, but if nothing has been done by then, we will regretfully have to mark it for closure. I hope you'll be able to get back to it by then. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC) |}}