Talk:Kim Kardashian/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I wish to make a name and pronoun correction to Caitlyn Jenner's referral

I believe the parts that refer to Caytlin Jenner as Bruce Jenner should be clear about her new identity. the main part reads: "After their parents divorced in 1991, her mother remarried to the 1976 Summer Olympics decathlon winner Bruce Jenner in 1991" I believe it should say: "After their parents divorced in 1991, her mother remarried to the 1976 Summer Olympics decathlon winner Caitlyn Jenner (Formerly known as Bruce Jenner) in 1991.

The life and Career section reads: "In October 2007, Kardashian, in addition to her mother Kris; her step-father Bruce...) I believe it should say: "In October 2007, Kardashian, in addition to her mother Kris; her step-father Bruce,(Now Caitlyn)..."

And in the Awards and nominations section in 2013 it reads: "Teen Choice Award Choice TV: Female Reality/Variety Star (shared with Kourtney, Khloe, Rob, Kris, Kendall, Kylie, and Bruce)" I believe it should say: "Teen Choice Award Choice TV: Female Reality/Variety Star [shared with Kourtney, Khloe, Rob, Kris, Kendall, Kylie, and Bruce,(Now Caitlyn)] The reason is that we as a community should be clear to explain and show respect for the identities of anyone who wants to be known or refer to as the gender they identify with. Hope to hear from you Ikaro6 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Mon/June/1st/2015Ikaro6 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Ikaro6 Ikaro6 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Correction Petition Ikaro6 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think we can retroactively change names like that. She identified as Bruce Jenner at the time; it is just like how we'd call Hillary Clinton by her maiden name (Hillary Rodham) prior to her marriage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. I agree with User:Lukeno94. Wikipedia needs to be historically accurate not biased and politicly correct.--88.104.136.143 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be bias or political correctness to follow Ikaro's request, which is actually perfectly reasonable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You just said that we can't retroactively change names like that though? I'm confused--88.104.136.143 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I did, yes. That doesn't mean that it was an unreasonable request, and it doesn't give you the right to make transphobic comments (deliberately or accidentally, that's how you came across). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2015

Please update Kim's salary as of 2015, she made 52.5 million, her net worth has since increased to $85 million. See sources here -

References

AT1716 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Forbes reasonably reliable? It supports the $52.5M number (although I don't see the $85M there). A better link for Forbes is http://www.forbes.com/profile/kim-kardashian/?list=celebrities. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015 (restore missing film to filmography)

The film "Kim Kardashian: Superstar" is missing from the filmography. It was included by User:Kww in July 2012 [1], but (mistakenly?) deleted by User:Lady Lotus in March 2013 during a reorganisation of the table [2]. A previous discussion on the talk page gathered no objections to the inclusion of this film [3]. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done:. I was about to implement this, but it seems that only films which have bluelinks are included in the list now, and there doesn't seem to be an article on Kim Kardashian: Superstar. Thus it appears that consensus is against adding works without articles at this time. I think that you should seek consensus before requesting this change. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There is always this link. Should I start an RfC? 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A good idea to test opinion, probably. I don't think a full-blown RfC is required, but I'll start a thread below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Kim Kardashian → Kim Kardashian West – As per website: http://www.kimkardashianwest.com/ , http://www.vogue.com/tag/celebrity/kim-kardashian-west/ and IMDb which also similarly presents: Kim Kardashian West. In comparison her Twitter presents Kim Kardashian West ‏@KimKardashian but the reason for the use of the "...‏@KimKardashian" ending may well be for no other reason that twitter usernames cannot be more than 15 characters long. There are other usages such as in potentially headlinese titles and in locations such as http://www.playboy.com/kim-kardashian but, arguably, "outlets" such as "Playboy" have a vested interest in presenting her as being single. If a long standing title such as Bruce Jenner can be changed to Caitlyn Jenner overnight then I think that other name representation issues can also be considered. "Kim Kardashian West" is a commonly recognisable name even if it is, arguably, soiled with reference to Kanye. GregKaye 11:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Making a comparison to Jenner's article is a other stuff exists argument. This particular naming issue is governed by WP:SPNC. In Jenner's case, a majority of news and other reliable sources seemed to take the new name Caitlyn right away, practically overnight (which I assume so they could emphasize the gender change). As for Kim's case, when I do a Google News search for kim kardashian -west (i.e. find pages that do not include "west"), I still get several recent news sources that still refer to her as only "Kim Kardashian". Thus it appears that many news sources have not yet adopted her full official name as either a commonname or stage/professional name at this time. And it does not really help when several of today's news sources that were reporting on her Twitter idea still only used "Kim Kardashian" instead of including "West" in their headlines.[4][5][6][7] That said, I'll remain neutral in this proposal, as both are commonly recognisable. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; she remains far more commonly referred to in media as Kim Kardashian, as can be seen in a Google News search for "kim kardashian" [8]: the vast majority of results omit the "West". Jenner is a false analogy, as the issues present there are not present here. —Lowellian (reply) 19:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Lowellian I appreciate what you are saying about common use but, when non sensationalist sources present biographical information on the subject, (as already indicated by the vogue and IMDb references) they use "Kim Kardashian West". See also http://time.com/3822676/kim-kardashian-west-2015-time-100/ . This is how the less sensationalist sources present their biographical content.

Beyond differences in changes being made to first and last names there is also considerable common ground between the Caitlyn and Kim comparisons. They both have names that they themselves now consistently use. The name "Kim Kardashian West" uses the commonly recognisable format of adding a spouse's name to current surname and the title "Kim Kardashian West" fully fits the criteria of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY namely "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." I think that it is fair to speculate that the type of people who will be familiar with "Kim Kardashian" will also be familiar with "Kanye West". GregKaye 06:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:UCN per Lowellian; further, she is a tabloid figure deriving her notability from the entertainment press, so it is the most relevant sources to deal with. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Her "common name" is certainly Kim Kardashian. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha ha! – Oppose (and WP:SNOW close – the proposed title isn't even in the ballpark of the WP:COMMONNAME). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite obviously not her common name now. If it becomes so in the future we can revisit the issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add Kim Kardashian: Superstar to filmography?

Please see the semiprotected edit request directly above, which I declined for being possibly controversial. As the IP editor explains, the pornographic film had been included in the filmography in an older version of the article, but was lost during a reorganization. There does not appear to be any opposition to having it listed in the filmography, nor can I think of any policy-based reason to exclude it: Wikipedia is not censored; WP:BLP is satisfied by including references, which the IP provided. It was added after a brief discussion here, but I see no further discussion about the list at all in the talk archives. However, at the moment I see that only works which have Wikipedia articles are currently included in the list, and this film has no article. Are editors ok with including it in the list anyway, perhaps with a piped wikilink to Celebrity sex tape#K?

Also, what is the film's proper title? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

According to IMDb, it is "Kim Kardashian, Superstar" [9]. It is described as something similar in the article Vivid Entertainment, which distributes the film. On Vivid's website, it now seems to be advertising the film simply as "Kim Kardashian Sex Tape". To me, adding it to the filmography seems obvious, especially because it is a large part of the reason for Kardashian's fame and closely connected with her early years (and rarely ignored in her early biographies). There has not been any objection so far. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and added it, since this page has been active enough to suggest there's no opposition, but we'll see if I get reverted. I used Kim K Superstar because that name is already used elsewhere in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Add a reference from Kim's official fansite

http://www.kim-kardashian.bz/2015/08/photoshoot-kim-kardashian-for-vogue-spain/

Rankeeks (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, a link to her latest photoshoot is not appropriate. --Senator2029 “Talk” 04:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kim Kardashian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140201235820/http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_k4U38GcyWUjEW2TRrBK5zK;jsessionid=213599296804A3C00D77193EC64B465A to http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_k4U38GcyWUjEW2TRrBK5zK;jsessionid=213599296804A3C00D77193EC64B465A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111102141236/http://www.chicagotribune.com/video/breaking/chi-video-was-kim-kardashian-marriage-divorce-a-sham-20111101,0,7143953.htmlstory to http://www.chicagotribune.com/video/breaking/chi-video-was-kim-kardashian-marriage-divorce-a-sham-20111101,0,7143953.htmlstory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141019112914/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealth-x-uhnw-valuation-kim-093000456.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealth-x-uhnw-valuation-kim-093000456.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Six screens of nobody !?!

I think this page should be significantly shortened ! Person already have its own fan page, and those who want another fan page to manage themselves, well, open a blog or something.--Santasa99 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

All articles on reality TV 'celebrities' tend to be overlong and overdetailed as they are largely written by their deluded fans. This article is no worse than most. --Ef80 (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Name(s) in lead

Why are there two names in the lead? It's completely unnecessary. It should be Kimberly Noel Kardashian West. That's her full legal name. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, then if is no objection, I will correct it. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I object so am changing back this unsourced change. She says in interviews her middle name is just Kardashian. http://www.eonline.com/news/475104/kim-kardashian-reveals-she-s-taking-kanye-west-s-last-name-watch-now Naue7 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Naue7, for the link. I'd never heard anything like that. I think it's stupid -- but I shouldn't be surprised coming from her (and that family). Please add that reference to the article. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The article basically says that she's keeping both surnames, Kardashian and West. The article doesn't say anything about dropping her middle name Noel or word Noel at all. Saying that Kardashian is a middle name does not make any sense, obviously just a misunderstanding. Mymis (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, in that interview she says Kardashian will be the middle and the article says it will be like her sister when she was Khloé Kardashian Odom. I can assure you Kardashian is her middle name and that you can find other interviews where she says this and that one was just the first time she said it. Naue7 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Mymis, Should we use this source instead as a bit clearer or find legal documents? (the youtube account is verified) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ovpc5B1mvA&feature=youtu.be&t=3m23s Naue7 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, she says nothing about dropping name Noel. Mymis (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

When people change their names it replaces the old name such as a maiden name. I will look for a better source later but court documents are normally on tmz which is unreliable... Naue7 (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right, apparently it's very easy to fluctuate between the names in America, it just seemed very odd to me. Mymis (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Awards and nominations table includes rowspans

There is a note in the edit window not to use them but rowspans are used to build the table. Checkingfax (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, that hidden note is talking about filmographies. I don't know if it was a mistake to add that, but it really doesn't belong. And, now I see that it's not even on WP:FILMOGRAPHY anymore. So, I guess it doesn't matter (depending on consensus) whether they're used or not. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

INCORRECT FIRST READ

So the first thing that happens when 'Kim Kardashian' is searched into google, is the small box that appears on the right side of the screen. Then the news and list of websites come up to the left of that box, and in the centre of the screen. And when the box is looked at, it says that Rob Kardashian in Kim Kardashians father. I knew this was incorrect as he is her brother, so i went to the wikipedia page myself. I found that the websote page had the right information, however the google first search box doesn't? I request that this be fixed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyandenglisharebae (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Historyandenglisharebae, we can't control what information Google's bots crawl and put up on its own website. Thank you for checking that this article was correct, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

She distributed a sex tape; ideally "pornographic actress" should be added alongside actress.

Renock82 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: To support our core content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research, Wikipedia must follow the lead of reliable sources, especially for biographies of living persons, such as this one. We need evidence of reliable sources also describing her as a pornographic actress in order for us to describe her as such in the article. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Mz7 (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Kim K was the most searched Pornographic Actress of 2015 on Pornhub, we should add "pornographic actress". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imacans (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: As before, we need reliable sources to verify that such a description would be appropriate. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments: Filmography

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include. The majority opnion stated its still for sale/commercially available and is controversial. AlbinoFerret 21:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Should 'Kim K Superstar' be included in the filmography of this article? Previous discussion here and here on the talk page has not provided any opposition, but it has been removed by Musdan77 in this edit, who has refused to revert.

• Support inclusion The film is a relevant and highly notable part of Kardashian's career. It is commercially published by Vivid Entertainment and generates regular income for Kardashian, no different to many other items in her filmography. There are numerous references for the film and there is no reason for it to be censored. Suggesting that the film should be removed because it is pornographic is not maintaining a neutral point of view. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Include No policy-based reason for exclusion: it is a $5,000,000 film, after all.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - per Kww. This is definitely a published and highly-promoted film in which she appeared as herself. It is a disservice to the encyclopedia to exclude it from the list. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose First, let me quote part of what I said in my previous discussion with 31.54.158.76: "I had no idea it was "controversial" as you say, or that it had been discussed before. If there was consensus found for it then there should have been a hidden note saying so." Now, my reasoning is: This was a private home video that was leaked. It's not acting or even a public appearance, etc. It's not something that goes in a filmography. Furthermore, according to the article and the sources, after the lawsuit, the company was made to stop selling it, so there was no "regular income" from it. And censorship has nothing to do with it. It is relevant for the article but not the filmography. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

kim kardashian is self-centered, only famous cause she made a sex tape, father defended oj simpson, hasn't worked a day in her life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.141.7 (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be corrected that the above quotation was not part of a 'previous discussion', as Musdan77 claims. It was made four minutes before he made the above comment and hours after the request for comments opened. Here is the diff. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys, keep it in mind before posting here whether the mundane particulars of your personal dispute are relevant to this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is still available for sale.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - Kardashian and Ray J both signed off on the release of the tape and it is still for sale on Vivid contrary to what is mentioned above. Well respected actors have pornographic films in their filmography like Sylvester Stallone with the first film he did. Naue7 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"contrary to what is mentioned above." You mean, contrary to what the source says. We go by sources at WP. And, Stallone's film/video was an actual production, not, as mentioned, a private home video that was leaked (stolen). --Musdan77 (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Musdan77, what source says the settlement stopped sales?—Kww(talk) 18:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The first one given following the paragraph: [10] --Musdan77 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see it made a prediction about the future. It didn't pan out. The tape is still available for sale (can't link to it from a work computer for obvious reasons, but perhaps another commentator will do the honors).—Kww(talk) 19:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There are many articles saying how the sales go up whenever a big event happens with Kardashian (another marriage, baby etc) and how it is the best selling sextape ever but if Musdan77 wants to update the sources used for a direct link to it then he can use http://kimksuperstar.vividceleb.com/ or maybe http://kimkardashian.vividceleb.com/ or simply http://www.vivid.com/ Furthermore if you watch the tape you will see Ray J's excellent commentary on how he wants it to be portayed as a movie with him as the director (many films are critically acclaimed even with poor production quality) You should also not be fooled and think that this tape was stolen (as already stated they agreed for the release hence why it is available to buy) as many similar films do this to hype the tape and create drama in the media to peak the interest of the potential consumer. Naue7 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue (at least for me) is not whether the company that bought the video is still selling it. But if there is a RS that proves that it is anything more than (I repeat again) a private home video that was leaked, that is what matters. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion -- the film is relevant, notable, and a part of Kim's career, therefore it should be included. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I don't understand why it would be excluded as it is a commercially available movie that made her millions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, not the issue. It doesn't matter how much she received from the lawsuit settlement. It is not a "part of her career". No one has been able to provide a source that I requested. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Musdan77, I'm not sure what source you require (if not Vivid) because it is a legitimate, legal film as soon as she signed her rights away and by definition it is a film so goes in her filmography just like many movie dedicated sites like IMDb and many others that state it as such and have it in their filmographies and of course it is part of her career she admits it is where most people first knew about her and she still makes money from it via royalties. Naue7 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that Musdan77 (correct me if I'm wrong) is looking for a reliable source for this claim you made: "You should also not be fooled and think that this tape was stolen (as already stated they agreed for the release hence why it is available to buy) as many similar films do this to hype the tape and create drama in the media to peak the interest of the potential consumer." We absolutely should not consider the sex tape as anything other than stolen and leaked unless we have reliable sources that indicate otherwise. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct, thank you. And, Naue7, you should know that IMDb is not a reliable source anyway. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Musdan77 It is a reliable source in certain cases and I knew that in this case it was not but was using it as an example as how many film based sites regard it as a film (as you seem to doubt). Doesn't matter how the film was produced it is commercially available and sex tapes that don't have permission from the people in it are illegal so are not commercially available. Naue7 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's not reliable "in this case" then it does no good to mention it. It absolutely does matter. We're talking about a filmography here. A filmography lists works that have been commercially produced -- not homemade. And you haven't proven that she "still makes money from it via royalties". --Musdan77 (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It was commercially produced did you not see the opening titles etc?? Doesn't matter what the production was if it was homemade or not meant for release when shot or shot with a potato it is still a commercially released film and should go in a filmography. I need sources for a lot of things you've wrote (such as your definition of filmography) but don't ask. It was released 8 years ago just type 'kim kardashian sex tape royalties' into Google. Naue7 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what happened after the release of the tape, reliable sources say that it was initially stolen and leaked. Unless a reliable source says that the leak was to create media drama and drum up publicity, we can't consider your claim in this discussion. The difference between that and Musdan77's definition of filmography is that this discussion is about whether or not to consider a private sex tape that was later publicly released a part of her filmography. It's something that's up for interpretation. Your claim is not, and especially since this is a BLP, a source is required for its consideration. Kaciemonster (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay let's keep om topic and keep to the definition of filmography then. If anything is filmed even if initially stolen then released but was later released legally though a production company such as Vivid Entertainment and is trademarked and people can buy it is eligible to be in a filmography. If it was leaked and had no permission for release and/or not commercially available then it would not be appropriate for a filmography. Naue7 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We have to look at the original intent. It was not a professional production; it was not acting; and it was not made to make money (as far as we can ascertain). --Musdan77 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - At the moment, I'm not convinced that including the sex tape in her filmography is necessary, especially since we already talk about it in the article. If it wasn't a home movie that was leaked and later released I'd say we should include it, but it seems out of place with the rest of her filmography. Sidenote: We don't include the sex tape in Ray J's filmography. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Summoned by bot. No valid reason to exclude. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This movie doesn't fit in with the other films, and it's misleading to include it. The movie was leaked after all, and she only consented to its release after the fact. I strongly believe that leaked films (even if the release leads to financial gains, but that's besides the point) should not count as an entry in "filmography." It's pretty clearly very different than TV shows and movies that she was hired to appear in. If consensus is to go into filmography, then it should be listed separately under a different title, as has been done with other pornographic actresses who have done mainstream movies, e.g.: Sunny Leone. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comments: Controversies section

Intelligentsium and Mymis continue to remove my edits that have a neutral POV and reliable sources and citations, unlike the rest of Kardashian's article which seems written by a PR agency. Further, since Kardashian is one of the most recognized celebrities globally and she has both invoked and attracted controversy, it seems more than fitting to have a section dedicated in her article to just that: controversy.

My edits are as follows:

• (Redacted) copyright violation, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-12-15/kobe-bryant-s-sponsorship-by-turkish-airlines-provokes-l-a-armenians-ire — Diannaa (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• (Redacted) copyright violation from http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kim-kardashians-most-controversial-moments-856687 — Diannaa (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Actor Daniel Craig said in a GQ interview: "Look at the Kardashians, they're worth millions. Millions! I don't think they were that badly off to begin with, but now look at them. You see that and you think, 'What, you mean all I have to do is behave like a f***ing idiot on television and then you'll pay me millions?'"
• Actor Jon Hamm said in an Elle/UK interview: "'Whether it's Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian or whoever, stupidity is certainly celebrated.' Mr Don Draper went on, 'Being a f***ing idiot is a valuable commodity in this culture because you're rewarded significantly.'"
• Ricky Gervais said in the 2012 Golden Globe Awards in 2012: "The Golden Globes are just like the Oscars, but without all that esteem. The Golden Globes are to the Oscars what Kim Kardashian is to Kate Middleton, basically. A bit louder, a bit trashier, a bit drunker...and more easily bought. Allegedly. Nothing's been proved."
• The Food and Drug Administration launched a formal warning against the manufacturer of the morning sickness drug Diclegis after Kardashian posted a photo promoting the product on her Instagram without disclosing the legally mandated risks.
• Kardashian posted a popular meme about motherhood, with the caption: “Shoutout to all of the moms!!! Hardest, most rewarding & best job in the entire world! This couldn’t be more true!” However, the public shot back with Tweets such as "Yes and your maids and [nannies] get paid well!”
• Kardashian took a naked selfie and posted it online, and Oscar-winner Bette Midler said: ‘Kim Kardashian tweeted a nude selfie today. If Kim wants to see a part of her we’ve never seen, she’s gonna have to swallow the camera.’"
• Piers Morgan wrote about Kardashian's latest nude selfie: "Of course, nudity has been a key part of her brand ever since she first burst into public consciousness via a leaked sex tape. Since then, Kim’s ruthlessly exploited every crevice of her body in a way so spectacularly successful that it’s turned her into a multi-millionaire."

Wikiwillkane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwillkane (talk • contribs) 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikiwillkane is repeatedly re-adding the poorly sourced Controversies section to this article. The controversy section being added is simply a bulleted laundry list of negative coverage and questionable "controversies" which tend to place undue weight on negative quote and coverage (some quite frivolous) Per WP:CRITS, an essay which reflects general consensus, criticism sections are inappropriate but in this case I believe it to be a BLP violation and have reverted it and intend to revert it if it appears again, unless there is consensus to include it. Intelligentsium 14:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• One item on that list that might warrant inclusion is the bit about her 2011 objection to the Turkish Cosmo cover: this got substantive coverage in the Los Angeles Times at the time [11] and was mentioned again in a 2015 People article about a family trip to Armenia. [12] I think a sentence about this could be added to the "Politics" section of the article. Also, some mention of her involvement with Diclegis might be appropriate in the "2012–present" section: it is relevant to her highly notable activities as a an endorser and businessperson, and the FDA response was covered in quality sources like The Wall Street Journal[13] and AdWeek [14].

Otherwise, I agree with Intelligentsium that these are trivial, POV in many cases, and don't deserve inclusion, and certainly not in an attack list labelled "Controversies". --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Origin and meaning of her last name "Kardashian"

Is there any information about the origin and the meaning of her last name "Kardashian"?

There are some Armenian names of Turkish origin which combine a Turkish word with the typical Armenian suffix -ian. For example:

Bilezikjian (derived from "bilezikçi"), Altiparmakian (derived from "altı parmak"), Terziyan (derived from "terzi"), Gerekmezyan (derived from "gerekmez"), Deveciyan (derived from "deveci"), Keresteciyan (derived from "keresteci"), Kurkjian (derived from "kürkçü"), Pamboukjian (derived from "pamukçu"), Aghabegians (derived from "ağabeğ/ağabey").

I wonder if this is the case concerning the name "Kardashian", too. It resembles the Turkish word "kardeş". Or is this just a random similarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.76.83 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Add picture to article

2601:2C5:C504:D326:F0FB:753:93A6:E7DA (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

someone send a picture of this C:\Users\Owner\Pictures\golf.jpg and some user told me that they want to add that to the article but I can't I don't think nobody would like to see that, Should I Iog in, get in account and add it on the article ? or should I leave it alone ?

Well, first of all, we cannot see the picture that you're talking about. Also, it's probably copyrighted, meaning it could not be used. Mymis (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

C:\Users\Owner\Pictures\golf.jpg you have to copy and paste it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C504:D326:F0FB:753:93A6:E7DA (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No one can see it because it is not a weblink, only you can see it. You have to upload it to the Internet so other people could access it. Anyway, it does not seem that you hold any copyrights of that picture and it would most likely be deleted. Mymis (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Occupation

I got several reliable sources citing her to be one of the best pornstars in the world. It should be listed in the intro and as her occupation. What do you think?

Here: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/528302/kim-kardashian-sex-tape-kanye-west-yeezy-ray-j-celebrity-porn http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/501927/Celebrity-sex-tapes-exposed-Brits-porn-obsession http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2917320/Australia-seventh-biggest-consumer-porn-world-trail-Kiwis.html http://brobible.com/life/article/most-popular-search-terms-2014/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagnificentist (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Your supposed sources show nothing of the sort. Internet searches and one sex tape do not make her a porn star. Meters (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Add 'Kim K Superstar' to the filmography

In a previous RfC [15], there was judged to be consensus to include the commercial film 'Kim K Superstar' to the filmography. Could an editor with editing privileges include it in the article? It does not seem to be there now (and there has been no subsequent discussion). 2A00:23C0:A680:CE00:E4B9:67D6:7ABE:CA85 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There was indeed consensus to include this entry in the filmography section in that discussion, and I see no subsequent discussions. However, from what I can tell the information was never restored after the discussion was closed. I have done so now. Any editor who wishes to remove the entry from the filmography should start a new discussion to establish consensus first, as inclusion has been controversial for some time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Stylist?

Re: "Kardashian first gained media attention as a friend and stylist of Paris Hilton."

The article should explain clearly what this means. What of Paris Hilton did Kim Kardashian "style"? Did Kardashian cut Hilton's hair? Pick her clothes? Rearrange her furniture? Something else? Did Kardashian have any formal training to do one of these? What the fornication are we talking about here? TheScotch (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

I would like to edit the facts about her early facts because some of them are not true well some are but not in the best way it could be Kim lover56 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible second robbery article?

Just wondering if there should be an article detailing the robbery since there have been arrests made and rumors that it was an inside job.--WMrapids (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

194.35.186.81 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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. — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 21:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

178.38.190.78 (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/beyonce

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.- Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian West?

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but since Kim took West's surname, shouldn't this page be moved to Kim Kardashian West? -Vistadan (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've also been wondering this, and if this were to continue, it would be recommended to use this page as a redirectory to Kim Kardashian West. The redirectory would be reverted to this page if a divorce would occur. However, this is a discussion for editors to be involved as well. MunRis (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, but, I think we would have to get an admin involved since both of the pages already exists. -Vistadan (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

She is still known primarily as Kim Kardashian, per WP:COMMONNAME. We are not gonna keep changing the name of the article every time she gets re-married. Mymis (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, sure. Vistadan (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed before, Talk:Kim Kardashian/Archive 4#Requested move 25 July 2015. The discussion could be revived though. Mymis (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I only brought this up because all her social media account have the name as Kim Kardashian West, but, It will most lightly be the same result if it is revived again though. Vistadan (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It can't stop it Palesa mbali (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?

The article on this reality TV star is longer than that for Isaac Newton. I don't know what that says about us as a society but it's nothing good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldiboronti (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

One's opinion on an article's subject does not determine its length. At any rate, Newton has multiple other pages that are about him - directly or indirectly - through his many scientific achievements; his article would be staggeringly long if his works were discussed in detail in his main article.

As for this page, please feel free to suggest improvements. Acalamari 01:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Media coverage

@The Kingfisher: statement "Kardashian's personal life soon became subject to widespread media attention" is sourced within the article, especially in the "Personal life" section. Sources include The Washington Post and The New York Times. Per WP:LEADCITE, there is no need to add references when there is no inline citations. Mymis (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mymis, agreed. Removed again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy section

Jackson.barnes, you have been reverted on this by me and by Mymis because your addition is significantly less encyclopedic and it erases other content that is there. That section doesn't need all that detail you added. Stop WP:Edit warring over this and discuss the matter here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Jackson.barnes, I see that you were reverted on the matter again. Read WP:Edit warring. If you continue to edit in this manner and without discussion, you are likely to reported at an appropriate forum; for example, WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Less encyclopedic? This section is the only that gives her a good name and image. Are you kidding me? My writing is probably more legitimate than most of the people that are filling in entries for Kim Kardashian. This is college level research with all due respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson.barnes (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jackson.barnes, yes, it's less encyclopedic. We are not here to promote the good name of anyone. The original section is decent-sized and worded appropriately. By contrast, your version goes into unnecessary detail, and even states "Here is one of the pictures that Kim posted to her Twitter account. https://twitter.com/KimKardashian/status/585932095383543808." That is not encyclopedic writing. You also should not be stating "Kim"; see WP:Surname for why. Even your "Influence on Armenian Genocide Recognition" title is problematic. Influence in what way? What sources state "influence" with regard to this matter? I have reverted you again, and am tempted to report you at the WP:Education noticeboard since you are a WP:Student editor who appears to only be concerned about your grade rather than the way that things work here. I warned you about edit warring above, and you still reverted to your version. Your version is contested by two editors so far. Do not reinstate it without WP:Consensus.

Pinging Johnnanoel (Johnna Lash) and Ian (Wiki Ed), who are connected to the course you are a part of: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Washington State University/ENG 101-38 (Spring 2017). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

you are going to contact my teacher? I believe that the things that my group posted are comprehensive in terms of information (this happens to be the definition of encyclopedic). I can understand the twitter picture thing, but all the other information is cool and people read it and it can lead to the viewers having a positive informative experience. I can change the title by adding a 'positive' in front of it. Nonetheless, I am going to be persistant in having my work appreciated. Looking foward to your response :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson.barnes (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Johnnanoel (Johnna Lash), if you keep edit-warring and not listening to the objections, yes, I will contact your teacher and/or report you at the aforementioned noticeboard. Other than the picture aspect, you have not addressed my above points. The way you are writing is not the way we are supposed to write on Wikipedia. We don't call the subject "Kim," except for when stating her full name in the lead, infobox, or "Early life" section. We call her "Kardashian." We don't directly talk to readers by stating, "Here is one of the pictures that Kim posted to her Twitter account.", except for in rare WP:Self-reference cases. We don't add bare URLs in the middle on the section; see WP:External links. Instead, we format the URL as a reference. We (usually) don't go into unnecessary detail, especially in a WP:FLOWERY way. Keeping what I've stated in mind, I suggest you include an improved version of your text in a WP:Draft and link to that draft here in this section for review. Then we can assess whether it needs further improvement and how to add it to the article. Don't just add your version without discussion when there are objections to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You guys hurt my feelings by doing this :( Me and my group were just trying to do good for the world but you had to take that away from us. I wish you further luck in your efforts to edit other people's hard work. Nonetheles, this was fun. Jackson out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson.barnes (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

But why did you even have to revamp that section anyway? Since it's already written well with references and everything. What about thousands of other pages on WIkipedia that have no references and with extremely poor writing. You should choose pages like that to work on. Mymis (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Kardashian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525160740/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/89368/20101207/kim-kardashian-top-earning-reality-star-for-year-2010.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/89368/20101207/kim-kardashian-top-earning-reality-star-for-year-2010.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Education?

Why doesn't the article detail her education? Most wikipedia biographies on other living persons do list it. It says she went to high school. Did she graduate? Did she attend university? Why/why not? Normal biographical information would be useful here. --108.48.11.48 (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian as controversy

Kim ass This article could stand to add more about public response to Kim Kardashian's claims to fame more in-depth (i.e.: her sex tape with Ray J, her working with Paris Hilton as a personal assistant, her appearances on the Simple Life) and how they ultimately spiraled into her multimillion dollar empire. Inclusion of the Time Magazine commentator referring to her Time magazine cover as "just provocation and bluster, repeated images that seem to offer us some sort of truth or insight but are really just self serving. We want there to be something more, some reason or context, some great explanation that tells us what it is like to live in this very day and age, but there is not. Kim Kardashian's ass is nothing but an empty promise," implies a somewhat biased yet applicable opinion of her, but the reader doesn't really see any other side of the opinion. there are a few quips that allude to her immense success, but overall not much else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Break the internet"

It looks like "Break the internet" redirects to Kim's article. There have been other notable uses of the phrase and it isn't exclusive to Kim. Although the phrase started with her explicit "Paper Magazine" cover.

Any thoughts on me creating a separate article for "Break the internet"? There are multiple, credible sources using "break the internet"; however, I'd like to expand upon this with other uses of the phrase and how it is often used in heavily popular/trending current events in social media. Of course, I'll highlight Kim Kardashian's involvement with the the phrase, how it exploded thereafter, etc.

CCAAG (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

Aefwghhjjt (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

she was married to skip postle in 2011

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kim Kardashian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718190636/http://www.movieweb.com/tv/TEzLMEr1MQqEDE/kim-kardashian-visits-octane to http://www.movieweb.com/tv/TEzLMEr1MQqEDE/kim-kardashian-visits-octane
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303024718/http://www.today.com/id/36632827/ns/today-money/t/crying-preening-all-way-bank/ to http://www.today.com/id/36632827/ns/today-money/t/crying-preening-all-way-bank/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925205707/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20521390,00.html to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20521390,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

Please delete mention of Jonathan Jaxson because he was never Kim's publicist. It's a fabricated story.

"A man professing to be her former publicist, Jonathan Jaxson, also claimed that her short-lived marriage was indeed staged and a ploy to generate money. Kardashian filed suit against Jaxson, saying his claims were untrue, and subsequently settled the case which included an apology from Jaxson.[120]" JmarchettiFP (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: That's exactly the point - it was a fabricated story, and generated publicity and a lawsuit as a result. Nobody's trying to say he was actually her publicist here, and I don't see any reason to remove it. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018

Alenapelagia11 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)