Talk:Keeping Up with the Kardashians

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editors please watch for spam 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Keepin Up Logog.JPG

message: 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)
thread_title: Series Premiere

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hmmm.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  How is his name...? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganizing this Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who are the Kardashians? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sex Tape 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues Tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is the show about? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The table that outlines the roles of the characters in the show 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  cannot believe this is such a bad wikipedia article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strange article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: 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.
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)
thread_title:  Reception section heavily biased 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corey Gamble 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Malika Haqq" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]