Talk:Kim Kardashian

Religion

I was looking for Kim Kardashian's religion and did not see it in the article. Is she a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church? If someone knows, please add this information to the article (with a good reference, of course).-Schnurrbart (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Social Media Presence

Kim Kardashian uses Facebook to connect with her fans in a unique way. Many celebrities use Facebook merely for the purpose of promoting their products, as well as update their Facebook pages in third person, which makes the Facebook page appear very impersonal. However, Kim Kardashian uses Facebook to relate to her fans by making her Facebook page very personable and approachable; she often reaches out to her fans by asking their suggestions for different decisions she has to make, such as posting a photo on Facebook and asking her fans what colour of pink she should accent her new perfume bottle with. She also creates polls for her fans to ensure her page is interactive with her fans. She also connects with her fans through social media by updating her status on what she is doing as well as her feelings, or by asking her fans questions. This method of Facebook usage helps her to create a para-social relationship with her fans .

71.231.13.199 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Is that supposed to be informative or should it be seen as more of an advertisement?

Elle aime bien se faire aimer!

Adult film actress?

Why isn't she placed in this category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.157.235 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)  Not done because she was in a sex tape, not an adult film. making sex tapes does not make you an adult film actress. --QuickEditor (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

controversy among Armenians

I know that she has been a subject of controversy among Armenian communities for "selling out" (i.e. having intercourse with an African-American). Many I know have called her a whore or a traitor for this. I think this subject should be included in her article, at least in some regard. I recognize that articles/sources would be expected, but I certainly have numerous cases of what Wiki would dismiss as "original research." That doesn't make it a non-issue of Armenian introversion.

Speedy Deleteion

She's not worhy of an article she doesn't do anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.132.197 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done There are plenty of sources that show that she has gained notability. Decisions made on Wikipedia are not based on someone's personal opinions.[[1]] Just because plenty of people hate Paris Hilton does not mean she is not worthy of a Wikipedia article, does it? No, she has gained notoriety. Whether or not she deserves an article is irrelevant because she has notoriety. There are plenty of sources showing her notoriety. Please see Wikipedia Biographies of living persons. --QuickEditor (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Like the use of 'notoriety' rather than 'notability'.86.157.141.21 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

'Fixed Thank you. --QuickEditor (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Psoriasis

Kim Kardashian was diagnosed with psoriasis. http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/21/kim-kardashian-diagnosed-with-psoriasis-report-says/ Should she be added into a group or at least have a mention of her having this disease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.102.93 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done An entertainment blog article is not a reliable source, and even if you manage to get a reliable source that topic is not notable or relevant enough to her to be mentioned in her article. --QuickEditor (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

cookie diet lawsuit section needs to be removed

The "cookie diet lawsuit" section needs to be removed. No matter how notable it is through countless news articles, it is not notable enough to be relevant to her article. It's honestly silly that it is even mentioned in the article. Someone with editing privileges please remove it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --QuickEditor (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and notability are different things. If it has been mentioned a lot in news media etc then it will be notable, and I can see nothing to suggest that it is other than neutrally phrased (although I am not familiar with the case and *hate* celeb culture!) Are you perhaps thinking of WP:DUE ? You can edit it yourself as you have the permissions to do so, but I suspect that it would be better to listen to responses here before diving in. Up to you, though. - Sitush (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it again, your right. But, even though being notable, it is not the mainstream level of notability that would make it worthy enough of mentioning in the article. No, I do not have the permissions to remove it, and even if I did I would not remove it without discussing it first. Anyway, you already mentioned that you hate celeb culture, which comes from a biased point of view. --QuickEditor (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about the "mainstream level of notability" makes no sense to me at all. You are taking your "neutral" campaign (as per your user page) too far here & I suggest that you back off a bit. Read what I said again: "Up to you, though", with everything preceding it being basically against your suggestion. If I hated celeb culture and let that affect my judgement then I would seeking to have this article deleted and be in favour of any suggested at all which caused it to become smaller. Please do not query my ability to disconnect; & check my edits to the article before making statements like that.

You do have "permissions" to edit: a semi-protected page can be edited by a registered account that has done as much other work as yours has. Open it up, change one letter, save it & then undo your change if you want to prove this to yourself. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done The section "cookie diet lawsuit" has been removed. The section was removed for the following reasons: (low in importance and notability to be mentioned in the article: kim kardashian). A consensus has been established due to the following reasons: (no considerable objections to the section's removal were made by an editor within a lengthy amount of time of the since this section was originally edited and for the said reasons above). Please do not attempt to revert the "cookie diet lawsuit" section back into the article. User:Sitush, the article's discussion page is not a place to argue. Please use the talk page, talk if you would like to further discuss the changes that have been made. Thank you. --QuickEditor (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted: you cannot make a decision based on a 24 hour-ish window of opportunity for response to a discussion, nor did you have consensus. I really do not understand the rest of your rationale, sorry, except to say that the place for discussion of an article is indeed the article's talk page & not your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid Wikipedia:Edit warring. This discussion is over. The discussion page is not a place for Wikipedia editors to argue. --QuickEditor (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now I have no civil answer to that ^. I will put it down to your inexperience. In future, just remember these points:

• you do not get your own way.
• article talk pages are for discussion of the article.
• changing something when there is a clear lack of consensus is not a good thing.
• re-read the policies for NPOV etc because you are getting them mixed up.
• read up on what is and is not edit warring, and check WP:BRD also. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)