Talk:Kat Von D

Jewish

Is she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. ;-) 64.142.90.34 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

someone should put up a picture of her...she's a nice looking woman

her real Name ?

are there more details about her name ? I mean, according to the article, her real name is Katherine von Drachenberg, while her father is named René Drachenberg. Where does the "von" come from ? Or is her real name just Katherine Drachenberg, without the "von" ? Also, it would be interesting to know, if she has some german ancestors, because Drachenberg is a german Name (translated into english the name means Dragon-Mountain) --87.177.223.142 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tattoos

How do people get a tat from Kat? :-D -Maria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.29.65 (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Every episode gives instructions for applying to get a tattoo on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.184.9 (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Divorce

I believe that she and Oliver Peck are now divorced. 209.74.0.248 03:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source of this? I've looked around the net and found nothing saying they were divorced. It seems that they may be in the process of getting divorced, but I haven't found anything stating they are.

She discusses it somewhere during an interview with Tom Green currently on her myspace,

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=554683&MyToken=6b8ade61-db4d-4dae-a2ea-be6ff4d13d8d

and on Green's blog,

http://tomgreen.com/blog/

She says in the opening of her show "I'm single now..."

And, for what it's worth, her MySpace profile says singleSeaphoto 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

She straight up said she was single on one of the first (if not the first) episode of LA Ink. I heard it from her lips! --Naha|^(talk) 04:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

She is no longer dating Orbi! They split, and now she is seeing Nikki Sixx and claims she has never been so in love. Check out her myspace picures for proof. 3/7/08 sarah s

MySpace is gossip, guys. She may be proclaiming to the world that he "owns her heart", but it's still gossip, whether there are pictures or not. We all know they're together, but until it meets Wiki's source standards, it should be left out. Sugarnova (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic identity

People have been inserting everything from "Mexican" and "Mexican-American" to "Argentinian-American" here. Barring some statement from her about what she would like to be identified, I think the following are in order from least to most true:

1. Mexican
2. Mexican-American
3. German
4. Argentinian
5. American
6. German-American
7. Argentinian-American
8. German- and Argentinian-American

It seems to be the last one is the most consistent with conventions on identifying a person's ethnicity but perhaps other people have different views. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.10.62 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 

fix please!

This page is severely screwed up this morning -- it starts out looking like vandalism but then perhaps just some severe coding issues -- someone with more experience please fix! -JR 74.223.3.210 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Miami Ink dismissal

It is speculated that Von D was summarily dismissed from Miami Ink by Ami James due to personality conflicts.

It's not speculation--it took place over several episodes of the show and was explicitly stated. Andchimeras 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That line, I suspect, is the remnant of something from the Miami Ink article. There was a rumor that her dismissal was staged so TLC could start a new program. -- Jelly Soup 08:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm thinking that we might need some temporary page protection action around here. There has been a steady rash of IPs vandalizing the article. -- Jelly Soup 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

COI edits

As several edits made by a user whose name include Kyanna, such as the claim that Kat is dating someone named Kyanna, were made and without any reliable sources, I feel it is imperative to reverse such conflict of interest edits. Please provide verification of any factual claims, and make sure not to violate Wikipedia's rules regarding editing subjects which you are personally connected to. Thank you, VanTucky ^talk 03:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism or over-the-top PR?

There is more in the entry about KvD than many people might really want to know. Hard to tell whether it's the work of a detractor (see the second paragraph of the Biography section) or an obsessive fan. 68.53.88.245 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Appearances section

This section needs major work - can someone more skilled than me try to sort out the coding, maybe using some tables? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pregnant?

In the commercial for the next LA Ink season on TLC, it shows her telling everyone she is pregnant. Should this be added? 65.95.196.18 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

24.253.51.173 (talk) has twice added vandalism to this page such as "Kat also has a tat of a black and white penis on her left butt cheek. The tat is a life size replica of Afro-American porn star Alex Steele's anatomy. Kat briefly hooked-up with Steele whom she met at the Adult Video Awards. " and other nonsense. I reverted him (I'm taking a wild guess that this is a 'him') again. Keep an eye out for this as it seems to be happening a bit. Rabbi Jesus Muhammed (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted a bunch of porno comments, can someone please protect this site so the sad people with too much time on their hands can't vandalize it anymore?

Thanks, Rhian Gittins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.8 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the Alex Steele comment...the meth comments should be gone as well. Sugarnova (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Handling the bio of a living person is a delicate job, and the bio page should not be subjected to vandalism. The trouble right now is that due to the claims of other people -- not wikipedia vandals -- Von D is embroiled in a controversy about antisemitic remarks, and even if attempts are made to protect the page from porn vandlaism and mentions of drug abuse, the newsworthy controversy should remain online. 64.142.90.34 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

they claim Chris Garver is saying it's true..Kat gave Chris that picture. so who knows...sad if it's true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.10.62 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Chris Garver made the accusation has been deleted from the article speedily, every time it was put in. Garver has a wiki page, and the mention of him is legitimate and is also linked to his wiki page. I think that the Kat Von D article is ready to be overseen by an administrator who can check it for Conflict of Interest, because the repeated deletions look like CoI, especially when they are edited by Kat von D herself. I realize that reality TV thrives on fake controversy, but, alas for Ms Von D, this controversy is a bit too real for her to handle gracefully, and by deleting Garver's name, it appears that she or her helpers are hoping to make it seem as if the accusation of antisemitism came out of nowhere. But it did come out of somewhere -- Chris Garver's mouth. 64.142.90.34 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

Neutral, sourced content should not be removed because one person doesn't agree with it. If someone has an issue with the inclusion of the alleged antisemitic section (ie "Controversy"), those issues should have first been raised on the talk page before removing it. Comparing this article to Britney Spears' is hardly a great argument because her article does in fact cover her numerous personal problems. Those problems just don't happen to included alleged antisemitism. The present content regarding Von D's alleged comments present both sides and, like it or not, is worthy of mentioning. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the stuff sourced to TMZ. TMZ is not a reliable source. It's a source of gossip. Re-inserting such material without *reliable* sources violates WP:LIVING and is a blockable offense. The onus is on those wanting inclusion to discuss first, and cite sources, before adding it back. --Rob (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says TMZ cannot be a reliable source? Whether what they write is newsworthy is completely separate from whether or not it's true. In their article on the allegations they have the following:

TLC gave TMZ this statement: "A publicity photo was brought to the network's attention eight months ago that contained extraordinarily offensive language. A full investigation was immediately conducted to determine whether anyone associated with the network was involved. Kat vehemently denied authoring the text and after completing the investigation, it was determined that insufficient evidence existed to conclude that she had. Therefore, no disciplinary action was taken. The network always takes these matters seriously and follows what we believe to be an appropriate course of action as dictated by the circumstances and available information."

Are you suggesting they invented this quote from TLC? Obviously it's true that there were allegations made against Kat Von D. There's absolutely no justification for removing this section from the page. And excluding TMZ as a source does not make any sense.68.72.108.110 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the controversy section. It belongs in the page, and the reference is perfectly acceptable. 68.72.97.159 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mad TV sketch

Add to page?: She appeared on MADtv on April 5, 2008 in a sketch with Bobby Lee and Arden Myrin. -Herenthere (Talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Although trivia is interesting, for some reason it is frowned upon here. Many articles have had their trivia sections removed by Admins, although a few people continue to add tidbits of trivia to an article every now and then. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Under the Controversy heading, this portion was slightly impartial. By using words like "accused" and conveniently failing to include other facts that were made public, readers, like me, will gather that she was definitely framed.

If this portion is reverted I will slap a notice on the main page about this article not being neutral. Again, you do not use words like "accused" when being impartial and then leave important pieces of information. This is not your own personal web page and others have the right to know everything that was reported, not just the parts that make your idol seem less guilty. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While I have no problems with your edit, I'm not completely sure what was wrong with it the way it was. I think all the information was in there. The real issue with this page is that the Controversy section keeps disappearing altogether, with editors giving various flimsy reasons for the removal. It had been missing for awhile until I replaced it. If someone chooses to revert your edit that's one thing, but if the section vanishes again an administrator definitely needs to step in. 68.72.97.237 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been to the main article since my last edit in 2006 and I don't follow the celebrity gossip, so I didn't even hear about this news story. When I read it here it gave me the impression that she was just outright accused, with little or no evidence. I felt it was slightly one-sided, omitting the fact that both Garver and James, who have worked with her for years, confirmed her involvement.

Also, there is no valid reason to remove the Controversy section. Completely removing a section of an article, especially when it is cited and significant to the article, is considered vandalism. From personal experience, there is only so much the Admins can do except warn or suspend the user(s). But I can assure whoever is removing the section that every time it gets taken down it will be reverted and they risk being IP banned. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside of getting in an all out revert war, the controversy section is constantly being removed. It is completely valid, and deserves to stay. Whether or not TMZ is considered 'reliable', it is completely fair to keep it in. I'm a fan...I hate to see any negative things written about her because of my geek fandom, but it happened...it needs to be there. Sugarnova (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

TMZ seems to be some kind of scandal blog. The story on that site, such as it is, shows that there's nothing in the story (the solitary opinion of a "handwriting expert" isn't much in the face of a clear denial by the alleged author that she wrote the words.) If only scandal blogs and the like are reporting this story, that's because it's a non-story. Carrying it in this article would be giving it undue weight. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You say "Whether or not TMZ is considered 'reliable...'". Well, whether a source is reliable is the essential question. We can only use reliable sources, especially in BLPs. Re-adding contentious claims without proper sources is a blockable offense. I've re-removed them, and suggest you get solid sources before re-adding them. --Rob (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand your point...and I'm certainly not trying to poke the bear,(Wiki rookie...be gentle) I just believe that it should have at least a mention. I agree, reliable sources are a must...I was the idiot that went on about MySpace being unreliable...I'm still learning, guys. Sugarnova (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above in the "removing content" section, there is nothing unreliable about the TMZ story. In it, they have statements from Ami James, from The Learning Channel and from Kat von D herself. They did not invent the story, and they did not make up the quotes! You are confusing reliability and newsworthiness. You can certainly argue that most of their stories should not be considered "news", but that is completely separate from whether or not they are true. Simple as that. The source is perfectly fine, the story is relevant to her biography, and the section is going back.68.72.81.73 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, the section is gone again. This is really getting ridiculous. 68.72.109.176 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why won't the person that keeps deleting it participate in a discussion? I'd like to hear why they feel it needs to be gone. Sugarnova (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's because he or she does not have a good reason. Kat's supporters have tried several invalid arguments in this talk page, and it now appears that one of them has simply chosen to make it a revert war.128.135.28.7 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can clear up why this section is being removed. The entire section is based on an article at tmz.com and does not appear to have been picked up in any reliable news outlets. So first, you have the section being based on a sub-standard source and second, you are giving a lot of weight to a mention from a single non-mainstream source. Both of these reasons are grounds for immediate removal, especially since this is a biography of a living person (please see the policy at WP:BLP for more details).

That said, if someone wanted to include material of this type, there's a couple of things you can do to keep it from being removed: Choose things that are reported by multiple, high quality (think New York Times) sources that covered the information; make sure you cite these sources when including the information. Avoid "Controversy" as a heading - work information in to the article in an appropriate section. Remember that not every incident that gets reported somewhere is going to be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia and when it is, it needs to be included in appropriate balance to the remainder of the article.

Anyways, hope that helps out. Shell ^babelfish 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you the one doing the deletion? I really think this needs reconsideration. The only reason this story was not reported in the New York Times is because Kat von D is not a big enough celebrity. If she were as famous as Mel Gibson, this story would have got the Mel Gibson treatment, no question about it. If you search the New York Times site, you will find no stories about Kat von D at all, save for one very brief mention of her show in a television column. And there's no mention of her at all on cnn.com. By your logic, the article should be nominated for deletion entirely because Kat von D does not have enough mentions in enough sources that somebody arbitrarily considers mainstream. What is the real issue here? People keep using the word "reliable", but this implies that the TMZ story about the accusations may be somehow false. It's obviously not false given that TLC and Kat von D herself issued statements about it. Do you really think TMZ fabricated all those quotes? Is the issue that the accusations may be false? That is certainly possible, but Chris Garver (who claims to have been an eyewitness) and Ami James are evidently sticking to their story, so I don't see any reason to favour her side by censoring the story here. Is it that the story is not newsworthy? It is certainly newsworthy as far as Kat von D and her fans, and therefore this Wiki page, are concerned. It may not rise to the level the New York Times, but that does not make sense as a blanket standard.68.72.109.176 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)