Talk:Kim Kardashian

Keep The Photo

The Photo is fine. I spent 2 hours looking for it. I would be very upset if someone got rid of it. Thank You! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burrito813 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC). Burrito813

Why?

is this all it takes to be a person of note? be friends with a celebrity and have a sex tape? i knew Craig David at school and have a video of me with an ex girlfriend do i get a wikipedia page now? Kejoxen 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. And CD goes both ways anyways.74.195.3.199 04:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that she is definitely a person of note. She is getting national news attention (albeit mostly celebrity news). I came here looking for information after I read about her in the news so at least on that level I am glad that the article is here. Being the daughter of an O.J. attorney is noteable as well as the fact that there is a rather learge article on wikipedia regarding celebrity sex tapes. I definitely believe that this article needs to be cleaned up, but I think deletion would be premature, especially since she seems to be able to stay in the news. But that's just my opinion. Tinman8443 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.openentrance.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/kim-kardashian-and-ray-j.jpg

She has been in the news many times recently, she is a "celebrity" herself in that respect whereas you are not. Also, she has one or two businesses in the fashion area. She is of note and the article should not be deleted. (but it should be improved!) 66.254.246.198 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading an article about her, I had no idea who she was. I googled her and found the Wikipedia entry. It told me all that I needed to know about her background. If it was useful to me, it might be useful to others. Sure, it could be improved (how about a photo?) but why delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.190.164 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I guess you can say she is a nobody somebody ... Coolspot 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an article just on her sex tape would be more appropriate. Aside from the sex tape, there is nothing notible about her. She isn't really a celebrity (news coverage does not equal celebrity). Rather, she parties with them and all her media attention derives from her association with celebrity. She has done nothing of note. She should be a footnote in articles about others, but doesn't justify an article. 12.96.162.45 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is premature but to call her a person of note when the only reason is the sex tape would Americanise the place too much. These sex videos happen all the tıme and others don't get wikipedia-ed. Boils 11:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is unnecessary, however, listing her as an American Socialite is entirely incorrect. I believe that category needs to be preserved for women of social distinction who are near, or at the end of their lives and have had an impact on society based on that sum total; in the meanwhile, these subjects are just Pop Culture and need to be listed accordingly. Kardashian is not from a lineage that has had an impact on society, but has acheived notoriety for one, small incident that received minor attention. It has had no impact on the culture at large. Hilton, on the other hand, has a place as a socilaite as her lineage denotes an impact on our soicety (the hotel chain). Comparing Kardashian to Doris Duke or Patty Hearst is a weak link at best and that sort of random placement needs to be monitored and settled in the proper category. American Socialites is not that category. ZiggyFortunado 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Check sources

Please check the sources you cite. I just removed a link citing the comments section on a gossip blog. --~ Mr. S 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Porn Star taPg?

Since when does having one sex tape make you a "Porn Star"?--68.174.171.94 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted some data back since someone edited it and messed it up.

When you star in a Porn. Does this not make you a "Porn Star"? Think about it. It's not rocket science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.236.114 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is rocket science, because a sex tape between two people doesn't make them porn stars. Being railed day in and day out for money makes you a porn star. It is a job title.75.121.100.41 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Four references are invalid

Four of the references for this article are invalid. Three of them are to vivid dot com and are all commercial advertisements. The New York Daily News link is dead and needs to be re-sourced. I will be removing the vivid dot com links immediately, and will leave it to the regular editors of this article to fix the Daily News link. Risker 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Media spotlight

Paris Hilton is her primary source of fame and friend, Like Hilton, Kardashian has been reported in the tabloid press for her romantic interests in singer Ray J, and a graphic sex tape that was purchased by Vivid Video in 2007 for $1 million from an "unidentified" source and depicts Kardashian and her then boyfriend Ray J performing various sexual acts. Prior to the release of this adult film Kardashian announced her intention to pursue legal action to further block distribution of the tape. This was the first public acknowledgement of the existence of the tape, which she had previously denied. Despite the impending lawsuit, adult retailers started offering the ability to pre-order the tape in Feb 2007.

I beleive all of this is relevant information.. except the dead link.

especially liked the <removed commercial spam link inserted by Anon IP editor> -=o)

I added a press release citing also and it was removed.

I am sure you did. However, advertising links are not permitted on Wikipedia. And edit warring over which commercial link to add is also frowned upon and can result in the editors involved being blocked from editing. Stick to reliable sources, not the company website. Risker 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't get more reliable than the actual sex tape website.. When you start censoring in this regard where do we stop.. fascism ?

Wikipedia is not a free advertising source. These are straight links to "purchase" the video. They aren't even press releases, and they certainly do not verify the information for which they are being used as references. If you disagree, take it to dispute resolution. Risker 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed several spam links to the Kim Kardashian Sex Tape. These links are all affiliate links to the Vivid Video site. Even if there was a valid reason to allow the links to the video, the only valid link would be the direct link: kimksuperstar.com. All other links are affiliate spam links.

Press Release Removed

I added the following press release and it was removed.

<removing link to commercial spam added by User:Bigdaddyc187>

That's because it's a press release. It is not being reported by an independent reliable source. The sentence for which it was being used as a reference is still in the article. But if nobody other than Vivid thinks that the release of this video is notable then the reference does not belong in the article. The press release is simply advertising in a different cloak. Risker 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the article, it really needed clean up. Artaxiad 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

huh?

Like her friend Paris Hilton, Kardashian has been reported in the tabloid press for her romantic interests in singer Ray J, and a graphic sex tape that depicts Kardashian and her then-boyfriend Ray J performing various sexual acts

Paris is known for dating Ray J and making a sex tape of Ray J and Kardashian?

Plastic surgery

Until someone has an independent, verified source to support the notion that Kardashian has undergone extensive plastic surgery, this has to stay out of the article. Get your sources lined up before including it - and "before and after" pictures are not verifiable sources. Risker 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a safe bet that she had a nose job. 75.36.234.199 08:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

yea and her butts fake with butt implants or a brazillin butt lift any idiot knows that you gotta be insane to think it's all hers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.178.60 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex Tape

Stop deleting mention of the sex tape. It's now sourced with decent articles. It's the primary reason this person became famous, although she appears to now be self sustaining. (This fact makes me hate the entertainment media, but it makes me hate myself more since I paid enough attention to know that fact).

As a side note- if you consider something poorly sourced search for a more reliable source before you delete it. Dropping "kim kardashian sex tape" into google news gets a ton of hits. This girls seems to be famous for being nekkid.

It keeps being deleted because it is being inserted without references and contains information that is clearly controversial. Our policy on biographical information about living persons is very clear that such information must be removed on sight. Please do not reinsert it unless you can do so with a (non-commercial) reference source, and that the information inserted is completely confirmed by the reference source. Risker 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

```` This is why wikipedia is flawed. The sex tape exists. People have seen it. What kind of references do you need?--69.149.222.32 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source for one thing. Tabercil 12:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in several entertainment mags. Someone just find one that mentions it, like a People or EW or something, then use it as your source. Then these people can't keep taking it off. Also, what's this 'non-commercial' requirement? I mean, newspapers are a buisness but does that mean the New York times is no longer valid here on wikipedia? Newspapers have add pages, yet often run articles on things that are subjects of their adds, does that mean the Chicago Tribune is suddenly off limits? Christ their are free sites you can go to and view parts of the damn tape at this point, and it isn't like she's disputing it's her or her boyfriend in it. How can it it be called "controversial" if the person isn't disputing it? Controversy is like saying a star is gay, when they've never said it and have denied it. It isn't just "ow something is racey". That's not the type of controversy wikipedia is refering too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.184.56 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "non-commercial" is a reference source such as the ones you have identified - published newspapers, magazines, etc - reliable and verifiable sources per our policy. This article has been heavily spammed with links to various sites selling the video; those are commercial links that do not meet WP:V or WP:RS. Many of the edits about this sex tape allege activities which Kardashian has flat out denied having taken part in; that is why any edits need to be well sourced. Risker 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The sex tape is mentioned on the Ray J page of wikipedia.. there is no reason why it should be there, but not here.. it's inconsistent. As well, sites like the Internet Adult Film Database and the Internet Movie Database have entries for the sex tape (nb: these two sites are used as references in the wikipedia article for 1 Night in Paris.)99.237.217.67 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read this article? The sex tape is mentioned - in the first paragraph. There is even a google search link used as a reference that demonstrates the existence of the tape is directly relevant to Kardashian's notoriety. One of the references discusses the sex tape. And really - big deal, it's a sex tape, they're a dime a dozen and not much more needs to be said about it. They are so commonplace now that, if not for the fact she was in a television program, I'd be hard pressed to consider her notable. But the stuff that keeps being added is a highly POV and unsourced statement about plastic surgery, and a link to purchase the tape. Neither of these two things is acceptable. Risker 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Commercial linkspam again

Well, it seems the semi-protection of the article was sufficient to force the spammers to go back to their long-dormant accounts and start inserting commercial linkspam into this article again. Linking to a commercial porn site is NOT appropriate for either a reference to the article, or as an external link. I will be requesting blacklisting of the "new" url to the commercial site, and will be asking for checkusers for the editors who have suddenly developed an urge to edit only by adding this link. Risker 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The urls to which this commercial linkspam was directing have now been added to the spam blacklist and are no longer able to be added to the article. Risker 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thnks fr th mmrs

dont you think her involvement in the music video (shes Petes love interest...and the monkeys) should be included in the video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.39.205 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My conflict of interest

{{request edit}}

I have a possible conflict of interest editing this article. I don't know the subject personally, but I know someone who knows her, so would that count as a conflict of interest?? I'm not really sure how to edit this article. Thanks, --Solumeiras <sup>talk</sup> 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to edit it, as long as your edits are within the WP:Biography of Living people. In short don't add anything that you heard from your friend, but what you can prove with Reliable sources. VartanM (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Also, it rather depends on whether you feel, in all honesty, that your knowledge of the person would mean any bias, either overly celebratory or overly critical, being introduced into the article through your edits. If you alone think that your contributions would not be made from a neutral point of view, then you should desist. Thanks. Ref <sup>(chew)</sup>(do) 14:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

photo

Could someone take a look at this photo? It is licensed cc-by-nc-nd, which may be problematic, though resizing doesn't seem to violate "nd". Argyriou (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

NC is no good. Wikipedia wants to be able to profit. VartanM (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed former partner from the infobox. VartanM (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)