Talk:Keeping Up with the Kardashians
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keeping Up with the Kardashians article.|
|While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.|
|WikiProject Television||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Keeping Up with the Kardashians at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
- 1 Editors please watch for spam
- 2 Fair use rationale for Image:Keepin Up Logog.JPG
- 3 Series Premiere
- 4 your show
- 5 Hmmm....
- 6 How is his name...?
- 7 Kylie Jenner
- 8 Reorganizing this Article
- 9 Who are the Kardashians?
- 10 Sex Tape
- 11 Is this page biased?
- 12 Multiple Issues Tag
- 13 What is the show about?
- 14 The table that outlines the roles of the characters in the show
- 15 cannot believe this is such a bad wikipedia article
- 16 Strange article
- 17 What does this mean?
- 18 Reception section heavily biased
- 19 What about her arse? ("ass" to US-ians)
Editors please watch for spam
With respect to Kim Kardashian, IP editors have been spamming any Wikipedia mention of Kim Kardashian with commercial links to purchase the sex tape involving her. Please double check any references or external links associated with her name. Risker 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Keepin Up Logog.JPG
Image:Keepin Up Logog.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
The series premiere date is listed as October 14,2007 in the article, which would fit with E!'s airing of new episodes on Sunday night. However, Zap2It's page on KUWtK list a premiere date of October 13,2007. Does anyone know if E! aired a "sneak preview" on Saturday, or is Zap2It wrong (Heaven Forbid!)?Buck O'Nollege 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) OBMA IS FUCKING HOT
Your show is a waste of TV space. You are boring people and could care less what you do. Please have your show moved to some other channel and some other time so you don't interfere with good prime TV watching. And get a life that is of some interest if you are going to have a TV show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree with you, this is hardly the place to voice opinions about the subject of the article. This discussion refers only to the article itself, so please control yourself and stick to discussing the article. Even though it is far from perfect, Wikipedia strives for objectivity and concise, well-researched articles. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
why the hell are they so rich. yes the stepdad is some athlete but he retired and yes the mom is a business person. most likely its the inheritance but one episode i saw one of them buy a 1.2 millon doller ring? i don't really care but just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limemellowyellow (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
How is his name...?
- Middle names aren't passed down like last names. For instance, my middle name is my mom's maiden name, and my sister's middle name is Dawn, which is just made up. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is awfully late for me to be saying, but Jennie is correct, normally if a middle name is different the son is not considered a "junior". Is there a source that specifically says he has been from birth, had "jr." to his name? I love watching this how and have never heard any mention of the term on his name, is it in the credits somewhere I havent noticed?Camelbinky (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course the whole notion of using "Jr." is quaintly American. No mention is made of this. In a similar way to the "World Series" being a US only tournament it's another indicator of the extremely parochial world view of most Americans (less than a quarter of whom even have passports, by all accounts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
kilie jenner is 10 born augest 10 1997 she is kim,kourtney,and khole kardashians half sister she is the youngest of the jenner family and kardashian family —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmone (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- i dont know when you wrote this but im 13 and my birthday was April 1997....Kylie is 12! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblahblah1258 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Reorganizing this Article
I was thinking about reorganizing this article by show season, for example:
- Season 1, Background (what the Kardashian family is dealing with at the time of the season), Episode List, Guest Stars, and Ratings
This would be the same for every season, but since this isn't my article, I was wondering what the public though of it before I went on with it. Post any comments/suggestions here. Thanks! 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Who are the Kardashians?
I don’t watch the show. I find that there is too much hype involved with it.
I was wondering… and this is purely objective statement from my part, why do they even have a show?
I was hoping to find an explanation on Wikipedia about who they are or what they did to deserve airtime. Seconded. Why do these people have a TV show. The Osbornes I get, he is a early heavy metal icon. But who are these people/family. I cannot sit through a commercial break on E! without seeing faces that look alike quarrel with each other. I lose track.
I hope this reality show is scripted otherwise I feel sorry for their parents.
The title has it right “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” is just that a viewers ability to keep up. I find it hard to believe that 13 million Americans watch this show (talk about nothing to do). I find it harder to believe that they are bought as a DVD set.
TO heck with "I". Mr Kardashian is now dead he was a lawyer who helped defend OJ Simpson. He died of cancer 3 or 4 years later. Then 3 or 4 years after that E network made THEM "famous" again by the TV series, why or how did that network decide/choose/accept this TV series? Totally unanswered question, reason I came to this page. Wfoj2 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that there should be a mention of the sex tape on the wiki. I mean the only reason that they have a show and Kim Kardashian is popular is due to her sex tape. Shouldn't that be mentioned at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This is another US "reality show". Not very real to be honest!
Is this page biased?
When I read this page, it feels like it was written by the show. There is no mention of controversy, the desctiptions of the characters seem almost like fairytales, and there was no mention of Kim's sex tape. This page needs to be revized, in order to have a realistic view of the show.
After watching the show, I simply wanted to know if it was scripted, staged, or if situations were simply presented to the family. After googling for about five minutes looking for news paper articles, i thought, why not check the wiki... well i did and the page was not able to answer any of my questions about the show. The condition this page is in reflects poorly upon wikipedia.
BTW mad props to the publicist for E! or the show who wrote this. WE
Yes the short answer is that over editing is leading to a cleansed an non useful wikipedia that has glaring omissions.. Oh well.
- Thank you for your suggestion regarding article. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
Multiple Issues Tag
Since I don't see an actual conversation regarding the supposed contested neutrality of this article (which is required when slapping on an NPOV tag), I have removed the tag pertaining to that issue and replaced it with a fancruft tag. In actuality, that is what's wrong with the article (too many details about episodes, etc.). Regarding the other tags - last time I looked a television show isn't a living person so tagging it for additional citations for a BLP is rather pointless, as is tagging it for neutrality twice AND unclear citation style. The only problem I see with the citations is that the article has two bare urls - that's not an unclear style. As for the supposed COI, I see that IPs mainly edit the article. Unless someone did a CU and it went back to the offices at E! or one of the Kardashians homes, AGF|I think the overly detailed fancruft is probably the work of an overzealous fan unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Pinkadelica♣ 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the show about?
It's on TV here but I haven't seen it and I came here to see what the hype was after seeing it mentioned in one of those celebrity shows. After reading this article I'm now more clueless than before. Shouldn't there be something to let a reader know what the show is about and what the actors are doing? The entire article is nothing but comments about how good the show is which rings warning bells for me regarding nuetrality. And yes, I did read the episodes to find out but it was a waste of time because it reads like sitcom not Reality television. Are they filmed in their own home? Are their "escapades" spontaneous or scripted, are any of the actors hired to interact etc etc? Wayne (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the concept for this show? Who are these people? I've never seen it and after reading this page, know absolutely nothing more than before I came here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with a couple of commenters here. The quality of the article is poor. I didn't know anything about the show, came here to find out, but had to dig to previous editions of the article. Apparently until September 05, 2010, there was an Overview section, which was deleted starting with the next November 9, 2010, edition. I'm going to copy and paste some of that.--Gciriani (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I was just discussing this subject with a friend of mine who does not know about the importance of the Kardashians, It is further determined that the article presented on Wikipedia does not cite the importance of the main persons involved with this show. All it discusses is when the show is aired, who stars in the show , and that is about it. I think this article needs to be up for a quality review so it can be determined how appropriate it is for Wikipedia. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The table that outlines the roles of the characters in the show
Well, I think the table is quite a mess, a lot of people on this article have agreed that they do not know the importance of who these characters are in real life. Take here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian for example. A short outline from each of the article imported into a section in this article may seem appropriate, but of course not in the list format that would not work for an article on this. Perhaps one paragraph per character with a link to the main article about the character itself. Think about this and share it with the other portals and see what they have to think about this themselves, I will present it too to the other categories for review. Thank you JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
cannot believe this is such a bad wikipedia article
I came here looking for sociological analysis. How is the program placed in US and world culture? What is its fanbase demographic? Is it primarily a vehicle for advertising products? Do people become addicted because it represents winning the lottery? Why does it have the success it does. What do I get? nada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The demographic of this show is 99-100% women. And demographic of wikipedia writers is ~90% men. And those 10% of women-wikipedians don't watch the show either. The show is totally retarded, full of bitching and bickering. I felt I was getting stupider by the minute while watching/skipping through this one episode. All the above makes a quality article nearly impossible. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can not believe it is such a bad Wikioedia article? You should modify your beliefs. This is one of many, many bad Wikipedia articles: a consequence of allowing anyone to edit and incorporate their particular view point (irrespective of 'POV policicy', which is easily and often subverted) and having mostly amateur editors of widely variable quality, credentials and experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the strangest Wiki articles I've read. There's no balance here at all. It's a combination of pro-Kardashian PR, along with unattested, inconclusive criticism. There's nothing here to help a general reader understand what the show is about, in what ways it's successful, and in what ways not. Apparently this is just too sensitive a subject for Wikipedia editors to handle?? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
What does this mean?
The show has been criticized for its famous for being famous attitude by several male celebrities including Jon Hamm and Daniel Craig." - From the "Reception" section of the article, last paragraph.
I know fans of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, eager to support the development of the show's Wikipedia page, will be inexperienced in writing in even vaguely cohesive terms, but this really is above and beyond. Can someone even begin to decipher the above quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Reception section heavily biased
The section currently refers only to viewing figures. These are a poor measure of reception by themselves, since programmes appealing to the lowest common denominator often achieve high viewing figures. Perhaps this is 'The American Way' whereby everything is valued only in terms of its financial worth. As the saying goes, 'Americans know the price of everything and the value of nothing',
Alternative, and arguably far more important, assessments of Reception may be obtained from critics, some of whom are interested in the cultural quality of a programme. There are, doubtless, many such who regard this series as being amongst the lowest quality mass entertainment possible, a criticism often levelled against so-called 'reality' television.
Still, it's an American encyclopaedia and if it chooses to measure only viewing figures, with little or no interest in the cultural significance or importance (or, in this case, unimportance) of a series, so be it.