Talk:Katie Price

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Under Drug Use, change 'in an interview in February 2018' to 'in an interview in February 2019' 2A02:C7F:3ADC:7A00:F911:7960:2663:DAE4 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Driving

Do we really need this overlong section? Other media people do not have every minor driving problem listed like this, so why here? It is over 10% of the entire article and is really not noteworthy. It should be summarised into 1-2 sentences, or removed completely. I will come back in 1-2 weeks and if there are no objections I will remove this sectionGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 14:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've refined the section of its excessive detail. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Like Topsy, this section just growed. Most if not all of it could be removed. Three points on a driving licence in 2008? But it's true! Even the drink driving conviction is of borderline notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Her driving offences have been a little more serious than that. I have trimmed the section of excessive detail. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

For most BLPs a single three-point offence would certainly not be notable. But one could argue that "there's a bit of a pattern" here, especially when the accumulation of previous offences leads to a ban? So the inclusion of minor offences is a valid part of the history? A bit like a Wikipedia editor's block history, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The three points originally linked to 'In December 2010, Price was banned from driving for six months by Crawley Magistrates court for accumulating 13 points on her driving licence'. After trimming, I linked the first usage of 'points' so non UK readers would understand the definition of the term. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Surgery section - bra/breast size

This section possibly needs updating. It currently states:

"In December 2007, Price underwent surgery in the United States to reduce the size of her breast implants and also had rhinoplasty. However, she was unhappy with the results of her breast implants, so returned to Beverly Hills, California in July 2008 for corrective surgery. She returned to the United Kingdom with much smaller size 32C breasts.[74]"

However, in a video on Katie Price's official YouTube channel (it has the tick mark as being verified as official) in a video in 2019 she says she's got "a new pair of boobs" and that she doesn't know what bra size she is. She says in the video her implant size is "750 CC". In the video she confirms that she is a "34 E" bra size after trying on bras. This then possibly indicates she has further surgery after July 2008 increasing her size or that the information regarding her being a 34C is/was wrong. We could include this information on the Wikipedia page as its from her official YouTube channel although per WP:YOUTUBE using YouTube as a citation is not generally preferable, however this does handily deal with this matter quite directly. Does anyone know of any other sources that state whether she has had more breast surgery post July 2008 or have any other thoughts about this? Link to the youtube video in question - REVEALING MY NEW BRA SIZE - KATIE PRICE. Helper201 (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Undue

The article as it stood yesterday fell well foul of WP:UNDUE. BLPs need to follow strict rules, and an article with a laundry list of every bit of negative tabloid gibberish does not do so. I removed it with a clear edit summary and was reverted without comment. I've removed the sections again. WP:BLP policy is clear: if you somehow disagree then at a minimum use an edit summary and start a discussion. En♟ Passant♙ 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see being arrested for driving offences, after turning a car over, and facing a jail sentence, widely reported in mainstream UK news, as "negative tabloid gibberish". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC) e.g. [1], [2], [3] , etc. etc.

It appears you haven't read WP:UNDUE. Just because something was reported in the news doesn't mean it needs to be covered here. BLP is a hard policy. Laundry lists of every negative interaction a living person has had with the public and/or police, when it's not the reason they're notable in the fist place, aren't acceptable. En♟ Passant♙ 13:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this really a list of every negative interaction a living person has had with the public and/or police? She has a repeating history of getting arrested for driving offences. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia ignores this? There may be some rational for removing some of the more trivial legal issues, but a blanket removal is completely uncalled for and not in any way conforming to WP:BLP. Happy to hear which ones you consider WP:UNDUE. Although I have to admit, I'm unclear what part of WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP the article currently falls foul of. Please be specific. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

What is Price famous for? According to the preponderance of secondary sources, she's a model and a media personality. WP:UNDUE speaks directly to the issue here, which is that some seem to want the article instead to carry nearly 13k bytes of text about her personal life. She isn't notable for her legal issues. And WP is WP:NOTNEWS. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that as a "media personality" Price is famous for her personal life. Her life is what she trades in. This is what makes her notable. Take that away and what's left? That covers the good and the bad. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I certainly have read WP:UNDUE, thanks very much. You seem to be saying that we should carefully hide all of these offences away as if they never happened. They form a major part of the public perception of Price, whether she (and you), like it not. Nationwide coverage by UK television news suggests these incidents are notable and not some kind of pernicious "invasion of her privacy". It's surprising she hasn't injured or killed another road user by now. "What is Price famous for?" - at the moment she's famous for a string of motoring offences. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. take a look at the "boob job video" for her explanation of why she never got to tell police who was driving when she got her "paparazzi points" - she has five houses, all with the same postcode, apparently, so she doesn't always get her post delivered properly.

Just to add another voice, criminal convictions by someone notable enough for an article are notable. Perhaps we could leave out some of the tedious other things she have done - panellist on a show, one among many participants in competitive shows that she lost, etc.? Pol098 (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Larger tits? Not a direct danger to the public, as far as I can tell. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123: the question or whether "you or I like it" is irrelevant. The text in question is irrelevant to why she is notable (not famous). While you say you've read WP:UNDUE, you don't seem to understand it very well. Your followup is to mention something about a "boob job video" to somehow explain why you think a 12k plus bytes of text about legal issues should remain in an article about a model? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Pol098: criminal convictions by someone notable enough for an article are notable Another editor who has not read WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Many of her legal troubles and driving offences have, for a number of years, been widely reported in reliable sources such as BBC News Online, Sky News etc. Possibly there might be a case for a slight trim of the "Driving" section, but I would not support the complete removal of the content or a whitewashing of her offences. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

EnPassant: that p.s. was an aside and not part of my rationale. Sorry if that was unclear. I'll move it here, so it's out of the way: take a look at the "boob job video" for her explanation of why she never got to tell police who was driving when she got her "paparazzi points" - she has five houses, all with the same postcode, apparently, so she doesn't always get her post delivered properly. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

EnPassant, WP:UNDUE opens with: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We are just including what's reported widely by RS sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

EnPassant, I don't see the words crime or criminal appearing at either WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps you could explain further? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

As above. EnPassant, rather than just linking, could you please point us directly to where WP:UNDUE applies to what you see as a problem in this article? Similarly for WP:BLP. Serious question. I wonder if you are reading something into the policy that no-one else sees. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I notice that the "Guest appearances" section of the article is entirely unsourced. The unsourced "Guest appearances" section could be removed as per WP:VERIFY, but with reliable sources covering her legal issues and driving offences, I wouldn't support the complete removal of this content. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I moved the undue weight template to the Legal issues section because this is where most of the problems are occurring. This was previously discussed in the two of the sections above, where I agreed that all of this was getting a bit bloated. As an example, the incident in October 2003 doesn't seem to have enough WP:10YT relevance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The answer may be to selectively trim. I don't think wholesale removal of entire sections is justified on the basis of WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Having now actually read the section, I agree that it could well be trimmed drastically. Even something like "Price has been convicted for driving offences at least x times since 2003, had at least y points on her driving licence, and £z in fines and costs for offences including speeding, driving while disqualified, driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs" etc., with references. Maybe a bit more detail than that. Pol098 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS: Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• WP:BLPGOSSIP (taken from WP:BLP): Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• WP:PROPORTION (From WP:UNDUE): An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. . EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Let's get this straight. You think that being arrested for drunk driving, driving without insurance and driving while disqualified, and facing a possible custodial sentence, is just "gossip" and/or "trivia"? Or that being hospitalised after a motor vehicle accident is disproportionate to a description of Price's life? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

If she had done nothing else but get arrested for drunk driving (and related issues) and been hospitalized for an accident, would she have a Wikipedia article? The answer to that is no. The fact people find her distasteful or dislike her for whatever reason isn't a reason to include the material in question. Otherwise it's POV pushing. That's why we have these policies in the first place, so people don't use Wikipedia to detail all the salacious tabloid details of whatever celebrity they find obnoxious. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Bankruptcy etc.

We seem to be back in the realm of mass removals: [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Do people (who are the subject of Wikipedia articles) "file bankruptcy every day"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article. As you ceased discussion above, I began trimming the UNDUE rubbish out. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion directly above was about driving offences? I don't recall announcing that I had "ceased discussion". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And here's another, somewhat larger one : [8] (removing 9,558‎ bytes). All six removals done within the space of 16 minutes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And now five, almost equally rapid, reverts? I suggest we return to the last "stable" consensus version, of three days ago, and then discuss possible edits one topic at a time. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)