Talk:Kim Kardashian

3082:, you have to petition the court for a name change to be official. You have to do this when getting married, and when getting divorced, which is usually no problem because it's a normal part of the process. In other words, you can tell everybody to call you what you want, but what appears on your driver's license and social security card will only be your legal name. Now you can petition the court for a name change at any time, but outside of marriage and divorce it's a much more complicated process and there's always a risk you may be denied, so people getting divorced typically just wait and do it the easy way, but note that the sentence does refer to her legally changing her name. 2055: 1014: 993: 768: 747: 2771: 2274: 2189: 854: 836: 1804:

severe look, but the lighting is better and the background is good. Not great but good. In the second choice, the lighting is bad, and gives her skin an almost green complexion. Her hair is in her eyes, and also casting a shadow across her eyes, and she looks stoned. And the background is horrible. It almost looks like someone used a pair of scissors and cut around her photo and stuck it on this incredibly-overpowering, white background. In short, it's a horrible image. (You wouldn't happen to be

2621: 1653: 1397: 386: 2663:, but I won't. The subject is perfectly recognizable in the older picture despite its age; the photo is well-centered, well-lit, and well-balanced; the background is neutral and high-contrast; her facial expression is natural and relaxed. In terms of quality, there's no comparison. The right picture isn't even a photograph, it's a visibly compressed and upscaled screengrab of an already compressed YouTube video. For all of these reasons, I'd argue that the left image is more so 1843: 1662: 1406: 2061:

look like she's staring right through you, or off into space, or was caught right as she was starting to blink or something). It looks like it was shot at the same event as the OP's choice, but is dramatically better in everything from lighting to color, reduced shadows, and just in her overall expression. I'd pick this one over all the ones that have so far been presented, but there may yet be a better one. Commons has thousands of them to choose from.

2612: 1834: 2850:

article. An entire section? A paragraph or two? A sentence or two? Or would even that be too much? An encyclopedia gives a brief summary of the subject, not in depth analyses, and summarizing by definition means cutting out unimportant details, and this is how we determine what is significant enough to include. If you want to do all that, you're most welcome to bring your sources here where it can be discussed.

925: 505: 904: 554: 533: 443: 419: 2018:: For anyone living under a rock, the current photo does give an air of political involvement and professionalism that is not true to Kim Kardashian's actual cultural influence. Though the proposed replacement does have some harsh shadows, it is more indicative of the subject's cultural relevance. Plus, it does a better job reflecting her current look (facial surgeries, hair color, makeup style). 659: 638: 3035: 2727: 2384: 2228: 2145: 234: 564: 669: 264: 1144: 1108: 1088: 377: 2642:: The picture on the left, despite its high resolution, is 8 years old and no longer mirrors how the subject looks today. Plus, the lighting gives her a robotic vibe, which isn't really how she looks in person. On the right, the photo is also very high-quality and bright enough for readers to see her features clearly without veering into that cheap 80s model look. 306: 1352:) which both include an introductory paragraph that lays out the significant and importance of the subject before providing a chronological summary of their careers. It seems extremely unlikely that a person who does not know who Kardashian is would want to know about the sex tape before they understand what she is famous for and what she has accomplished. I saw 3127: 453: 1708:

I'm not certain I have an opinion on which photo to use outright, but I will say it's somewhat striking to me how differently they both portray the subject. Does that matter to the thinking? I don't think either is unflattering or a BLP violation, but one is professional looking with the trappings of

1336:

FWIW, I don't have any particular knowledge or affection for the subject. I certainly don't consider myself particularly partial. I do think that the article (and the lead in particular) does not give enough attention to Kardashian's substantial business accomplishments and the primary sources of her

2956:

source) on one side, and the sources containing this info on the other. With this subject, I'd imagine the first side would be stacked halfway to the moon, while the other side just a handful. Are there enough sources to make 1%? 2%? 5% and you may have a paragraph. 10% might be worth a section. But

3062:

Change "allowed" to "prompted" her to drop "West" as her last name. "Allowed" implies that there is some rule that a married woman must use her husband's last name and can only revert to her maiden name if divorced. Obviously, that is not true. A married woman can return to using her maiden name at

1506:

It's not just that the left one is cropped, it's that it's low-resolution on top of that as opposed to the right one. The left one is blurry when upscaled because it's a tiny crop. This is especially noticeable on mobile; when you click on it to enlarge it, you literally have to squint because it's

1226:

including a mention of kim in reggies article, but simultaneously excluding any mention of reggie from kims article, seems as though it might imply that somebody made a decision that: kim is "important" enough for people who read reggies article to be made aware of her, if they werent already, but:

3001:

Just trying to help. In my experience it's always an option but not a very effective strategy. We're all volunteers here, so the pay is lousy. Like me, most people are just too damn lazy to do all the legwork ourselves. The burden is generally on the person who wants the info included to source it

1812:

fallacy, in that it assumes we only have two choices. We actually have an abundance to choose from. The lede pic should be the best one we can find. It should be a portrait style, with the subject facing the camera, and looking right at it if at all possible. It should have a good background, with

2323:

It was proven with legal contracts and documents provided by William Ray Norwood Jr. (a.k.a. "Ray J") that Kris Jenner had planned the sex tape as publicity for the family. There is documentation signed by all parties including Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian and William Norwood that the sex tape was

2060:

I still say find a better pic. I see a couple more choices added, but I'm not sure I like those either. This pic here is not much different from the one the OP proposed, but look how much better it is. It doesn't have that weird greenness to it. She is smiling and looking right at you (it doesn't

1803:

I really got a good laugh about the comment that it makes her look like an elected official. That's either a major stretch or an insult to the reader's intelligence; I'm not sure which. That said, if it's a choice between the two, I'd pick the smaller photo. I think the tied-back hair is a rather

2938:. That's especially important for celebrities, because so much trivial stuff gets written about them that we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. With all the sources about this subject, somehow I doubt the info would require an entire section, or even a whole paragraph, but I may be wrong. 1729:

My thoughts as well. I don't think it goes as far as a BLP violation, but the current image has a certain connotation to it that isn't necessarily appropriate. She's a television personality who made a one-time visit to the White House. Using that picture as the lead image makes her look like an

1326:

A number of issues with that lead. Order of notability. Her being in one of Forbes wealthiest lists isn’t one of the reasons why she rose to fame, it is rather a result of it, and mentioning it all right in the first paragraph does play with the tone of neutrality with the article. Avoid using

2849:

The thing is, we need to satisfy several criteria before it can be included. First, we need very reliable sources. Not tabloids and gossip columns but good sources. Then we need to weigh those against all the other sources about this subject to see just how much space it would deserve in this

1925:

I might not have taken your poor eyesight into account, but I can tell that both of your proposals and the current image used are of inferior quality without enlarging them. I wouldn't have opted to change the lead image if I didn't. Using cropped YouTube screengrabs when we have professional

1903:

I never understood the argument against screenshots (in most cases). In 99% of cases, the "over compression" that people frequently complain about is barely noticeable unless you deliberately enlarge the image. Something that people have to realize is that we are optimizing images for their

1553:

Ultimately speaking, I don't see how the low resolution is of any matter given that said image is meant to fit in the infobox. It also doesn't seem to be small for mobile applications either; unless your attempting to look for dead skin cells, one doesn't have to squint in both the web and

1759:

I hadn't even thought of natural as applying to the setting. I was mainly focused on how much it replicated an elected official portrait and whether that was potentially an issue. But you're absolutely right pointing to that section of the MOS. Having had a minute to chew on that, I

390: 1243:

while most people who still possess a little common sense understand that this group is actually just comprised of a bunch of hypersensitive npc muppetbots, a message like the one being mentioned above, seems to be exactly the sort of thing theyre most triggered by.

3087:

Also, a woman is not required to revert back to her maiden name after a divorce. "Prompted" implies she was not planning a name change until the divorce had concluded, which would be a bit of mind reading on our parts, so I think "allowed" is better in this context.

1332:

The point about order and unnecessary adjectives are absolutely fair. That said, the new lead introduced a series of new and more up-to-date facts and improvements as well. I saw you kept one. Why not fix things instead of (almost) completely reverting the efforts?

1247:

this usually causes them to display an exaggerated sense of self righteousness and outrage, while also seemingly acting as though they are contestants in some sort of competition to see which member can amass the highest amount of self ascribed 'victimhood points'.

2035:: It is true that the current picture look isn't of the highest quality, and it suggests that Kim Kardashian is a government official. However, the second picture also looks weird and bad. Sure, it has good quality, but it still looks like Kim Kardashian from Wish. 2078:, while I find this one a bit oversaturated and poorly centered compared to my proposal, I'd gladly settle for this one if that would mean your support. I've thoroughly searched Commons for the best possible pictures before I started this RfC. As with almost 1687:, making compression, grain, and blur more apparent (especially on mobile). The right photograph is high-quality and well-lit. It might be older than the current one, but the subject's appearance hasn't changed in such a way as to confuse readers. 1684: 1337:

notability and fame and gives more attention to the more salacious or trivial parts of her life in a way that I think reflects a more widespread sexism in our treatment of influential women celebrities (not unique problem in Knowledge, of course).

1813:

good lighting and color. Something like a professional photographer would take for a graduation photo or something similar would be the most ideal. I say, find a third (or fourth) option, because the one suggested for replacement is a bad photo.

1884:

In terms of quality, these two are objectively worse, even when compared to the current one, since they're severely compressed and blurry screengrabs of videos. Don't know why you'd choose any of those two in favor of a professional headshot.

2515:

The corrected sentence: Also in 2011, Jenner made an appearance in her sister's show, Khloe & Lamar when it debuted, and the series focused on Khloe Kardashian and her then husband Lamar Odam's personal life and relationship.

2511:

The original sentence: Also in 2011, Jenner mad an appearance in her sister's show, Khloe & Lamar when it debuted, and the series focused on Khloe Kardashian and her then husband Lamar Odam's personal life and relationship.

2824:

There is absolutely no mention of the Swift-Kardashian-West feud back in 2016 at all. There should at least be something regarding it, as it captivated the three of them during that time. Not to mention the fact that

164: 1597:

Saw this listed at Third Opinion. 3O's are like stopping someone on the street and asking, "Is the Brooklyn Bridge for sale?", for an offhand quick opinion. Here's my opinion: Keep the existing image. Regards,

2951:

Here, I'll help. It's really a basic math problem in figuring out percentages. Imagine you have a scale, with every source that has ever been written about the subject (not just the ones in the article, but

2694:- Give a choice between the two, I would go with the one posted here, hands down, for the reasons given by Throast. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to finding a better one than either of these two choices. 1236:

personally, i dont really care either way, but there is a certain group of individuals who might care, relatively recently, there have been reports that they are exhibiting signs of increased activity.

1251:

i feel as though the most logical course of action moving forward, would be to remedy this matter as soon as possible, and avoid the manifestation of any possible future complications down the road.

2087: 2536: 1230:

even if there is no actual implication that somebody made a decision here, an inference might yet be made, whether directly or indirectly, that the message in question is still being conveyed.

201: 2090:

because the next-best pictures available are blurry screengrabs). This photo set (her at Parramatta Westfield Sydney Australia) are the highest quality/most recent pictures that are available.

1200: 3208: 2957:

that needs to be figured out by people who have read and are familiar with all the sources, which is not me. But first you'd have to bring us some sources. It's like self-serve around here.

2173: 1568:

What it seems to come down to is that we have irreconcilable perceptions of what constitutes high quality images. I just don't see how one could argue that out of those two, the left one is

2555: 2357:. The two sources you provided don't "prove" anything; all we could say is that Ray J is alleging these things and that the Kardashians denied it. And I'm not sure that's worth including. 3188: 356: 1233:

even if leaving reggie out of kims article, or vice versa, wasnt anybodys conscious decision or "fault" per se, do we really want to risk possibly sending such a message?

225: 3298: 1064: 1054: 1652: 1396: 1772: 1717: 1492:

Is the one on the right that of "high quality" works? Personally, the lighting is way too off. I'm not sure what makes the fact that the left was a crop so unappealing.

158: 3303: 3283: 3203: 1948:. Even if the screenshots suffer from over compression, that's still better than the image that makes her look like she's finna form a planetary system around her. 1170: 975: 965: 3253: 1175: 1165: 818: 808: 316: 3308: 2844:

First I've heard of it, but then again I really don't follow either of them. The only reason this article is on my watchlist was from several requests at BLPN.

1944:

K and I also might have not taken into your account your colorblindness considering that your arguing in favor of an image where she looks whiter than fucking

2535:

when she was married to Kris Humpries, her name was Kim Kardashian Humpires. Since formerly West is in the article formerly Humpries should also be included.

3288: 3273: 3163: 1180: 1030: 361: 3293: 3268: 3263: 3178: 1160: 344:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 1356:'s message that the tape should be mentioned and like his modification to my edits that did so in passing much more than the current text you restored. 90: 1254:

the easiest way to accomplish this would be to either, remove the mention of kim from reggies article, or include a mention of reggie in kims article.

3193: 3173: 941: 3278: 3228: 784: 620: 610: 3248: 3218: 3183: 2810: 1021: 998: 471: 336: 3213: 55: 3238: 1768: 1713: 729: 719: 96: 3064: 932: 909: 475: 3258: 3198: 2331: 2305: 1280: 775: 752: 2054: 3243: 2806: 2540: 586: 479: 1204: 3223: 2177: 2559: 1327:

adjectives such as ‘enormous’, it doesn’t make the info any more neutral either. Seems somewhat disorganised and impartial overall.

470:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 1439:. The image I added might be 8 years old, but her appearance has not changed in such a way as to confuse readers. The image is an 2460: 2363: 1765: 1710: 1260:

if you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to reply to this topic or contact me on my talk page.

870: 284: 3168: 2971:

Yes, I do realize that. You don't have to tell me. It's also an option to go to those articles and pull the sources from them.

2208: 695: 690:-related subjects on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the 514: 466: 429: 424: 271: 110: 41: 1445:

the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see

3233: 2109: 1960: 1916: 1875: 1559: 1497: 280: 179: 115: 31: 1279:

Fix the backtrack mistake by Chicago and add back that kim was a model. There are countless photos of her modeling clothes.

2601:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

146: 3115: 2790: 2713:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2680: 2585: 2121: 2099: 1935: 1894: 1750: 1696: 1632: 1581: 1541: 1516: 1483: 1456: 577: 538: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 85: 1904:

comparatively small presence on a webpage and not full size portraits. Ditto for the argument against the current image.

2493: 2479: 1375: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 399: 2474:

Could you give a reliable source to support your claim? AN article that says that she totaled her car, not her father?

1240:

they like to portray themselves as extremely, shall we say, "aware" of the myriad problems plaguing todays society..

1730:

elected official. If we only had the current image available, fine, but we have a higher-quality image that is a more

861: 841: 76: 2659:: If we are arguing looks, I could argue just as well that her facelift and filtered skin on the right make her look 1013: 992: 2906: 2778: 2281: 2204: 2200: 2023: 1227:

reggie isnt "important" enough for people who read kims article to be made aware of him, if they werent already.

691: 682: 643: 233: 196: 767: 746: 2337: 1950: 1906: 1865: 1852: 1555: 1525: 1493: 1420: 312: 244: 140: 2873: 1607: 1303: 292: 3068: 2488:

Never mind my first reply. I have already found a source and the changes were already made. Have a nice day.

2309: 3041: 2759: 2733: 2489: 2475: 2390: 2234: 2151: 2040: 1361: 1284: 1150: 1114: 1094: 345: 120: 2019: 136: 2521: 2464: 2429: 2415: 853: 835: 1572:. The left image is clearly more blurry than the right one, and I stand by my argument regarding mobile. 2976: 2884: 2834: 2344: 1424: 1340:

In any case, I was basing my work on several good and featured articles for other celebrities including

780: 405: 2755: 2425: 2411: 2259: 1805: 1926:

photographs available is just nonsense. If you don't see why that is, I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

287:. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 186: 2647: 2643: 2517: 2439:

Hi. Would you mind telling us exactly what those are please? That's the easiest way we can help you.

2332:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-09-12/ray-j-kim-kardashian-sex-tape-kris-jenner

355:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 376: 305: 2340: 1989: 1599: 1447:, as per MOS, than the current one in my opinion. In terms of quality, I refer to my edit summary. 1299: 172: 66: 2255: 1029: