Talk:Kimberly Guilfoyle

Fair use rationale for Image:Kgnofficial.jpg.JPG

Image:Kgnofficial.jpg.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 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

Plastic surgery

Is there any information out on the net that shows that Kimberly has had plastic surgery, botox, cologene, etc? TVKingdom 07:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.51.85 (talk)

Since this is now three years later, I guess not. Why do you ask? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Real or artificial, it's worth noting she's the hottest woman on TV today. 98.101.227.58 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

She is also great on FoxNews, intelligent and wise. WP reader 97.95.51.85 should not ask such a rude question .!. In other ways, how does this WP article look? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur. The question seems offensive to me. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the original question or what followed is at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. If there was some sort of list in a notable magazine or something that focused on that, such as if Esquire released a Top 100 hottest news personalities or something, maybe a quick reference to that is okay. But otherwise, talking about it is silly. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Another three years have passed, and there is still no information about whether Kimberly has had plastic surgery. More seriously now, I don't see anything wrong with being curious. It isn't inappropriate to discuss as part of a Wikipedia talk page. I make this statement as a female Wikipedia editor over the age of 40. I don't consider it rude or that it warrants blanking as a discussion topic on Kimberly's BLP talk page. Yes, she is wise, articulate and highly intelligent. Kimberly is actually a role model because she is authentic (highly educated and accomplished), not just a pretty face. I was stunned to learn that she is 48 years of age in this BLP. It is important to inform diverse reader viewpoints on Wikipedia, including those of women. If there is any evidence from WP:RS that Kimberly has had "plastic surgery, botox, collagen [sic]", then we can probably find a way to include it in her BLP. At this point in time, it seems that she is entirely untouched by cosmetic surgery, which makes her all the more remarkable. I say that not because of how she looks, but because she is confident enough in her identity and appearance that she has not succumbed to the dominant social narrative of pre-feminism gauges of self-worth. As for the article, we can't say that she hasn't had any surgical enhancement of course, but the fact that there is no WP:RS (nor even not-WP:RS!) to that effect, gets the message across.--FeralOink (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You would need a strong citation for that notion. 170.39.241.110 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Modeling

Should "modeled for local department stores, including Macy's, and modeled Victoria's Secret lingerie in a bridal magazine" be in "Education"? It is interesting and highly relevant information but it seems to me to be irrelevant to education. Sam Tomato (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point! I'll have a look at that right now.--FeralOink (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither interesting nor relevant. 170.39.241.110 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not interesting or relevant. 170.39.242.131 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Template misuse

The article uses the "Infobox officeholder" template, when it should use the "Infobox person" template. Guilfoyle has never been elected to a public office. Calling her as First Lady of San Francisco an "officeholder" is equivalent to calling George W. Bush's dog Barney as First Dog an "officeholder". Absurd. It may not be stolen valor in Wikipedia, but it comes close. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 22:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

​​So "First Lady of San Francisco" was removed on 25 August 2020 and restored on 23 October 2020. Do we want to determine a consensus for this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a recognized office. It does not belong in her infobox. I'm not aware of any other article putting being a spouse of mayor in the infobox. Infobox officeholder should not be used because she has never held office. A mayor's spouse does not compare to a governor's or president's spouse, where First Lady is more widely used and spouses take on reported-on duties, if unofficial. She moved to New York before Newsom even became mayor so listing her as an officeholder, especially short of what she supposedly did in "office", is risible and I have restored the infobox person. Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t know that info box Office Holder has there in August, 2020. I assumed since she was still legally married to Newsom at the time, that made her First Lady of San Francisco for two years. Admiral Farmer (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, not an elected or other "official" office. Avocats (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Role in outing Reince Preibus as leaker

Several citables sources reporting. Wikipietime (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kimberly Guilfoyle - Fox News Host.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Article contained & may still contain BLP violation, presenting neg allegations as fact.

I deleted the statement about harassment as it was presented as a fact based on a citation that says allegation. In view of BLP, nothing derogatory should be stated about this person except with solid proof, at least 2 reliable secondary sources which base their claims on known verified primary sources. Also harassment is a weasel word; if some harassment occurred, the specific evil deed should be delineated and at least 2 reliable witnesses of it on some specific date or dates and places should be the evidence.(PeacePeace (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC))

Covid-19 diagnosis

This strikes me as trivia and recentism. Regardless of being reported in reliable sources - 2,700,000 americans have been diagnosed with covid-19. This will cease being newsworthy in about 36 hours, assuming she doesn't die from it. WP:SOWHAT. Anastrophe (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree if:

• She wasn't a chief fundraiser for the Trump campaign who held campaign events without following CDC guidelines for controlling the spread of the coronavirus - endangering a number of people.
• She didn't attend multiple large Trump campaign events, which did not follow coronavirus guidelines. Other large scale event have been cancelled, but Trump is unique in 1) creating large events that put people in danger, against public health officials opinions, and 2) actively setting a tone for attendees to avoid following CDC guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is pretty much soapboxing. You make a point without your political bias creeping in. Otherwise it's not taken seriosly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That it was widely reported in reliable sources seems enough to be worth a mention here. But only a mention unless there's more. Barte (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Education

Trinity College Dublin Unless she attended by a different name she has never attended Trinity College Dublin. I've scoured their alumni lists from 1989-2006. Also searched all research publications. The only thing close came in reference to the medical school division citing a K. Guilfoyle as a research partner in children with disabilities and technology use in 2013. Which does not align with what is on her page stating "international children's rights and European Economic Community law. When you click on citation [13] and then you click on the cited Fox News bio link it gives you an error message and page not found. I'm in the UK and have also scoured many a different search engines for either one or both of theses "published" research papers. I can find nothing. I've also reached out to Trinity College Dublin but alas they cannot confirm (or deny) anything about any past, current or expected students due to recently passed privacy legislation. So the only cited source directs you to a "page not found" on Fox News archives. HokiePoe (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Can it be left for now while looking for sources? I think it's possible she may have used another name while there. But it also seems possible that "studied" doesn't mean she graduated. It might be she was there for interim classes or some sort of exchange program and only there for a semester or just a few. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This article - while it regurgitates near verbatim this article's claim about studying at Trinity College - does provide additional context of the extent of the time she spent in Ireland, suggesting the plausibility of her studying there: https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/kimberly-guilfoyle-facts . Further research is needed. Since the material doesn't brush up against any BLP restrictions, I think the material can stay - briefly - while further investigation takes place. Anastrophe (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR also applies. We usually take primary sources such as her bio at face value for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". If said bio were incorrect, that's grist for investigative reporting by a reliable secondary source, which in turn could be cited here. Barte (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This will probably sound naive, but shouldn't her bio be taken at face value considering she is a former assistant district attorney? Unless there's something from sources to be trusted that say she's a liar, that is. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC) No one's perfect, but I think it seems unlikely that would happen for both the district attorney of San Francisco and Los Angeles. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid information

From the article: "In May 2018, news leaked that Guilfoyle was dating Donald Trump Jr. while he was separated but still married to his wife, after the two attended an event together.[43] Guilfoyle had been friends with the Trump family for years.[44]" There are two problems with this. 1) the citations do not say what the article says, and 2) this is not based on reporting from reliable sources, it is gossip from tabloids. Not worthy of an encyclopedic article. Please remove. 192.107.159.198 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I replaced with a cite from a contemporaneous story from the Washington Post and rewrote. Barte (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If we have better sources than The Washington Post let's use them then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WaPo is a reliable source. There's no need to use any other. Anastrophe (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This cannot be right

The article states about Guilfoyle's father Tony:

"Until his death in 2008, he was a close advisor to his son-in-law, then-San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom."

But later in the article it is stated about the marriage between Kimberly Guilfoyle and Gavin Newsom:

"Their divorce was final on February 28, 2006."

If these are both correct, they contradict each other: After a divorce, one's ex's parent is no longer an in-law.

He was an advisor of his son-in-law while Guilfoyle was married to him, and for two years after. I see no real issues here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual harrassment

I glanced at this article and saw that the sexual harrassment accusations are mentioned twice, once in the "television" section and once in "personal life". Do we really need this ? Also, the text in the latter section may be a little too long and detailed. Perhaps we should delete the part in the "personal life" section, and if necessary put back some of the details in the "television" section. Psychloppos (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Psychloppos Other figures with sexual misconduct allegations/suits that intertwined with their careers feature both mention of the impact on their career in their career bio, and more-detailed mention in a subsequent section of their articles. Such as the articles for Bill O'Reilly and Bill Clinton SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I understand, but it would make more sense to have the details in only one section. Psychloppos (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Numerous grammar issues

There are many instances of missing or redundant words and general grammar issues. 47.185.34.9 (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Add a category relevant to her career

Category:21st-century Roman Catholics MaribelCasey00199 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)