# Talk:Keeping Up with the Kardashians

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexisanderson89.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Caitlyn Jenner:

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)
Sounds like a terrible problem, call Dick Cheney! 65.248.164.214 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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
"OBMA IS FUCKING HOT" is not an appropriate comment and has nothing to do with the subject of this talk page.  Qewr4231 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2011 (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 Robert Kardashian Jr's middle name Arthur when his father's middle name was George?  Jennie Ambrose (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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)
I know a lot of people that use Jr. even though their middle names differ from their siblings. It's mainly the first and last name that's important, many people rarely use or go by their middle names.71.190.182.22 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2010 (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 86.130.97.232 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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! 24.107.238.158 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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.
Everyone deserves their 15 minutes of fame but these guys are hoarding it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.108.85 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 
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 99.166.17.126 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 
This is another US "reality show". Not very real to be honest!

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.111.173 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC) 

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).

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)

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 115.177.148.175 (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)

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)

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 122.61.61.161 (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. 24.6.219.36 (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 86.130.97.232 (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested to see some data on the stat that "90% of Wikipedia authors/editors are male". Certainly, that's a hyperbolic (and, arguably, misogynistic). 
As far as this actual question (rant?) goes, many pages about TV shows do not include demographics/much info about viewership. Omitting this information does not make a page "so terrible".  Caitlin.swartz (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2019 (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?? 76.102.1.129 (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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 2.28.219.73 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keeping Up with the Kardashians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Will review this. Posting my comments today. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
the eleventh season of the show  Numbers equal to or greater than 10 are typically kept in digits.
 It additionally places emphasis Can it be simply "emphasizes"?
Kim's best friend Jonathan Cheban and Khloé's best friend Malika Haqq  "best friend" seems informal. We do not really know the relationships between them, and I am not sure if the people themselves have stated this. Perhaps "close friends" would do.
been a part of the show "a" seems unnecessary.


### Background
 together, daughters I think it should be colon not comma.
Can Olympic be linked?


### Development
In August 2007, it was announced By whom?
I think sitcom should be linked
The show debuted on E!, an American cable network which features mostly entertainment-related programming and reality television series You should introduce E! the first time it is mentioned in the section.
 Keeping Up With the Kardashians premiered on October 14, 2007 You should mention earlier that the show had been named so. Something like "The proposed show, named Keeping Up With the Kardashians, premiered on October 14, 2007"
premiere citing high ratings Should this be "cited"?
we really are." E! has never once I think a double quote has been added here by mistake.
Was wondering if money conversion templates should be used in this article.
 the television series are used to  Should be "is" if you refer to the series as a whole


### Cast
All the names in the first two lines, except "Brody", should be delinked. All of them are duplicate links.
it was later claimed that Humphries By whom?


### Related programming
Duplinks:  spin-off, Lamar Odom, Dash Dolls, Kris Humphries, Caitlyn Jenner


### Critical response
Duplinks:  The Hollywood Reporter, trans woman


### Viewership
Duplink: E!, Lamar Odom
3 million total viewers The numbers should be in words as per the MOS.


### Awards and nominations
 has been nominated and  "nominated for"?
I assume the whole intro is based on the sources of the table?


### Broadcast history
August 22 and concluded with another "Junk in the Trunk" episode on December 20, 2010 In the first date you do not mention the year 2010 but the next does.
Where is the year mentioned and where is it not? Generally once you begin with a year you need not repeat till the next year begins.
 9/8pm time period Should be "9:00/8:00 pm" as earlier.
The eleventh season This should be in digits in my opinion.
The prose is well-written and the sources look good. That should be all. Good luck! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Response: Hello. Really happy that someone has finally decided to review my article, much appreciated! I believe I fixed all the listed problems. Have some futher comments/questions:

Per MOS:NUMERAL, "integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in word". I think it's better to write the numbers of the seasons in words, especially in the Broadcast section which already has so many numbers as part of premiere dates. Thought reading the article would be smoother with fewer numbers. Wat do you think?
What did you mean by money conversion templates?
You mean you want me to change the sentence into "has been nominated for and won several television awards"? Would it be grammatically correct?
Looking forward to your response and possible addtitional comments. Mymis (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mymis. The article looks better. If you feel the MOS policy will not suit the article, then you can choose not to write the numbers in digits. I think I will drop the money conversion suggestion; it is not followed in many articles and I myself am clueless about its documentation. About the grammar trouble, I see I did not pay attention there. You need not rewrite it the way I suggested. This article is indeed a great job. No copyvio detected, sources, images and prose look good to me. I believe it meets all the GA criteria now. I am happy to promote this. Excellent work! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for promoting my very first Good article, really appreciate you devoting your time to read it. Thank you again, and have a nice day. Mymis (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that this talk page was created out of ethnocentric frustration. There's no real need to mock other cultures on talk pages. Ethnocentrism does not fit within the spirit of Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia was started in the US with global goals. Anyone in the world is encouraged to use and edit!
However, for the reference of anyone reading this, American pages do discuss critical reception for pop culture. In this case, no one had taken the time to do so. Wikipedia works best if readers take a moment to research and add the information they believe is missing. Everyone is an author and an editor here! 
Furthermore, the rules about country specific editing have to do with language form and units, not encyclopedia content. Meaning that an article about an American topic should use American English/US Imperial Units, while an article about a British topic should use British English/metric units, etc. With regard to pages which are not country specific (eg general topics), only one type of the language/units should be used. For example, an article should not jump back and forth between British and American English. 
There are many different geographical subtypes of each language and no subtype is superior. This rule is about uniformity within an article.  Caitlin.swartz (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, one question, what roles does Corey Gamble (Kris Jenner's partner) take on the show? Since when did you start taking on the recurring role? I think it should be added in the description of the cast.
Ibiza03 (talk)  22:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

How can a show be intelligent? This is just a fancier way to say "the show is dumb", which is indeed something a critic could say, but isn't in itself a precise critique, so this sentence doesn't add any useful information.
You could still quote a critic saying "this show is dumb". But the cited reference "7 TV Shows That May Be Lowering Your IQ" doesn't actually say that; as far as I understand it says the show's subjects lack intelligence, and that viewers may get a confused sense of social cues from mistaking reality TV for real life.
==Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160C== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pbergmann33 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Samarodeh0.

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Malika Haqq and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 18#Malika Haqq until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)