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)

Her father is of german ancestry,but born in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.32.118 (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it helps to clear the about European "von", "van", "de" and sorts. They are not part of the name, but represent a suffix showing nobel ancestry. While some countries in Europe remain monarchies, most of them are republics today - and thus have no legal nobility any more. In Germany it's costumary to write the "von"/"zu" before the actual name in the passports, but if asked for the family name itself the prefixes are not mentioned. So, Katherine's name is very certainly Drachenberg, whether the "von" is an real prefix or part of the artistic persona, is her's to disclose. I hope, I could help unravel the mixup. --92.231.35.17 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kat Von D has given her name as Katherine von Drachenberg in two German interviews; (translation): Süddeutsche Zeitung: "Kat, your surname is von Drachenberg. That is a German name..." Kat von D: "Yes, there is a castle 'von Drachenberg' somewhere in South Germany, which is owned by some of my relatives. I've got a postcard, but I was never there." & Der Spiegel: "Kat von D is the abbreviation of Katherine von Drachenberg..." Kat von D: "Yes, my father's mother is German. Somewhere in South Germany there is a castle with this name..." http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/taetowiererin-kat-von-d-sie-geht-unter-die-haut-1.523622 & http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,525758,00.html --IIIraute (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these quotes have been in this article for quite some time now and the various editors who have worked on this have been aware of them. In neither quote does she say, "My father's name is von Drachenberg." All she says is that her father's mother is German. That's all. And aside from the fact that whether the castle genuinely is owned by relatives — a claim needs to be independently confirmed — her own bio on her own official site gives the family name as simply Drachenberg. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

...are you able to read? In the Spiegel when asked: "Kat von D is the abbreviation of Katherine von Drachenberg..."? she answered: "Yes, my father's mother is German. Somewhere in South Germany there is a castle with this name...". So when asked "is it von Drachenberg", she said "YES". However, the bio you are talking about was written "as told by one who knows her", in this case, Kore Flatmo. Apart from that, it is very common for German aristocratic families to not use their "von" in public, for example Richard Weizsäcker, Otto Solms, etc. --89.204.152.55 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)--IIIraute (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, she does not answer the question. She doesn't reply with "Yes, that's my name." She affirms that her father's mother is German, but she does not confirm that Kat von D is an abbreviation of Katherine von Drachenberg. a_man_alone (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. You have two editors who feel you are misreading the quote. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Focus" newspaper writes that her real name is "von" Drachenberg http://www.focus.de/fotos/die-taetowiererin-kat-von-d-eigentlich-katherine-von-drachenberg_mid_982147.html, so does IMDb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2507879/ --IIIraute (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Focus: "Die Tätowiererin Kat von D, eigentlich Katherine von Drachenberg..." and Mediagroup RP: "Der volle Name von Kat von D. deutet auf ihre deutschen Wurzeln: Sie heißt Katherine von Drachenberg..." http://www.rp-online.de/gesellschaft/leute/schrill-und-schoen-kat-von-drachenberg-1.2017518 --IIIraute (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, and I'm not sure of the status of foreign language sources either - especially when I don't speak the language in question, but I'm willing to listen to others better in the know over that one. a_man_alone (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Focus is a German weekly news magazine distributed throughout Germany. It is the third-largest weekly news magazine in Germany with a circulation of ca. 750,000. The Rheinische Post is a major German regional daily newspaper, published since 1946 with an average circulation of about 400,000. --IIIraute (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The German noble family, barons "von Drachenberg" did exist: http://books.google.de/books?id=SJpDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA229&dq=von+drachenberg++adel&hl=de&sa=X&ei=W4IhT_DxJpGvtAbhu-WnBw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=von%20drachenberg%20%20adel&f=false; http://books.google.de/books?id=2EtBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA504&dq=von+drachenberg+baron&hl=de&sa=X&ei=OoMhT_vxDYHEsgbu89jwBw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=von%20drachenberg%20baron&f=false; http://books.google.de/books?id=rpFDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA47&dq=von+drachenberg+baron&hl=de&sa=X&ei=OoMhT_vxDYHEsgbu89jwBw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=von%20drachenberg%20baron&f=false --IIIraute (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

None of that means that it's her father's' name; old-world affectations are often dropped by immigrants in the new world. In her official bio, which she approved, she give her father's name without the "von." You are pushing a POV interpretation that multiple editors, including the one who added these non-English-language sources, do not agree with, and have blithely edit-warred to the point of WP:3RR to "get your way" on a non-consensus edit. I can see you're going to force this into a long and contentions RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several sources where Kat Von D says that it is her name; there are major newspapers that very clearly state that "von Drachenberg" is her name.... so why don't you bring a source in which she, or some newspaper, etc. does claim that it is not her name? --IIIraute (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't prove that someone didn't say something; we can only prove what they did say. What you're asking is like saying, "Prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist." All one can do is prove whether it does. Otherwise, we accept that it doesn't exist.

She says in her official bio, by her approval of it by placing it on her official site, that her father's name is simply Drachenberg. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While you are searching, trying to prove YOUR POV, let me help ypu with some US sources: NYpost:"...Von D, whose real name is Katherine von Drachenberg..."http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/another_relationship_ends_for_jesse_ok6ZNisK1exZ89dq6NrGLN - or maybe, CBSnews: "...Von D (whose real name is Katherine Von Drachenberg)"http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20083408-10391698.html - or the DailyMail: "...Kat, real name Katherine Von Drachenberg..."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303687/Jesse-James-enjoys-dinner-reality-star-Kat-Von-D.html etc, etc.--IIIraute (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We already say in the lead that she has given her name as Katherine von Drachenberg. She can call herself whatever she wants. That's her right. People change their names all the time. But that doesn't mean that that is her father's name, which she gives as Drachenberg. I'm sure you understand that a child and a parent don't have to have the same last name.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Stick to secondary sources - I have given lots of them. There are major US media-networks that claim that "Katherine von Drachenberg" is her name. What you are doing, is speculating and not quoting on sources.--IIIraute (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

She also says that the Drachenberg castle is owned by her relatives, doesn't she? And again, you are speculating whether or not the castle is genuinely owned by her relatives. Stop speculating and stick to the sources.--IIIraute (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Superlative claims require superlative sourcing. Claiming that your family owns a castle requires more than her word for it. No journalist would accept a claim like that on face value, and an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than journalism.

And we're not talking about the castle or what she gives as her name. You keep confusing the issue. We're talking only about the name of her father, which she herself gives only as Drachenberg.

You are actually the one speculating, drawing inferences from the name of a castle and other things. I, however, am not speculating when I say that she herself, in her official bio, gives her father's name as Drachenberg.

Would you please stop talking about castles that may or may not be her family's, or what name she has given for herself. We're only talking about the name of her father, which her official bio gives as Drachenberg. Can we please address this one issue only. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess we better now change the article to Katherine von Drachenberg. Since, nowhere in her bio she claims that her name is Katherine Drachenberg, but there are dozens of official sources that state that her name is "von Drachenberg".--IIIraute (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Any objections? Where did that "Katherine Drachenberg" come from anyway? and why is owning a castle a superlative claim? my family also owns a castle. STOP your journalism and stick to secondary sources!--IIIraute (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Objection. a_man_alone (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That is your POV. Where are your sources?--IIIraute (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Where in her bio does it say that "Katherine Drachenberg" is her name?

Even though not relevant, all other wikipedia articles give her name as "Katherine von Drachenberg", so do countless secondary sources. Where does the claim of "Katherine Drachenberg" as her name come from?--IIIraute (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That should finally answer all doubts: the official US-government documents from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" that prove that her real name of birth is "KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG". http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85049892#; please see her application for the trademark of "Kat Von D": http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85049892/APP20100531102050/Application/4/27-May-2010/sn/false#p=1 (see pages 1, 3 & 4). So no more speculating - no more POV! The article can now be changed to "Katherine von Drachenberg".--IIIraute (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tattoos

How do people get a tat from Kat? :-D

Go to the high voltage website, you can sign up for a tattoo off camera, If you want to do it on-camera go to the website of the station that her show is on (TLC I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.100.2 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

-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
9. Jewish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Overall she really into talkng with a lot of people while shes is doing her tattoos. -- 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)

== Relationship with Nikki Sixx ==

Under the biography heading, last line it states, "dated Nikki Sixx for 2 years but broke it off." This implies that she broke up with him.

Nothing of the sort is known. Nikki is the only person that has commented on the situation officially (in the linked source, his myspace blog). He says, "We are taking a break from our relationship for reason’s that we will choose to keep personel (sic)." This implies a mutual decision.

Can someone please rephrase this line in her bio to make it more neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.139.13 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2010 (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)

I don't think all the details are necessary. Can't we just say that the photo included anti-Semitic comments? The details can be found on the links; I don't think it needs to be explicitly repeated on this page. Aryder779 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Your sentence was a bit awkward though so I (hopefully) improved it. 68.72.106.175 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 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)

Trivia sections are frowned upon. Rather, it's best to try and work the information into the body of the article itself. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:44, 3 August 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)

I did the last removal, but Shell did a good job explaining the reasoning for removal, and how some material may be re-added. A quick search at Google and Google News, suggests Kat von D receives ample coverage beyond TMZ. TMZ is not a reliable sources (especially when used as the sole source). NY Times is just one of many reliable sources. Also, the lack of reliable sources is never an excuse to cover something without them. See WP:BLP for our standards on coverage of contentious material on living people, as well as our blocking policy for those who violate it. --Rob (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating that TMZ is not "reliable" but you do not elaborate on what you think that means. Do you actually believe that the story is, or could be, false and that the quotes from TLC, Kat von D, and Ami James are fabricated? 68.72.109.176 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No and in fact, generally when writing articles, you'll find that its not about true or false, its about a concept called neutral point of view. When someone here says that a source is not "reliable", this doesn't actually refer to what the source is reporting at all, it means that we don't think the source meets the editorial standards that the Wikipedia community has decided on. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication - TMZ, an online gossip rag, doesn't really meet any of those criteria, so its use, especially in a biography is going to be suspect. Again, I'd suggest that reading the biography of living people policy and even the policies on sourcing might help explain this in a bit more detail. Shell ^babelfish 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the policies, and there is nothing in there that excludes TMZ as a reliable source for this story. You say "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication - TMZ, an online gossip rag, doesn't really meet any of those criteria", but where in the world do you get that? How do you know how many people they have fact-checking and how big their legal department is? In fact, I would argue that being primarily a celebrity "news" site (and associated television program), they would take extra care that their stories are not libelous and that anything that is presented as a fact is actually true, considering the multiplying number of lawsuits they would face otherwise. At any rate, they certainly do not have a reputation for publishing factually inaccurate stories and to me, that's the definition of reliable. Anyway, most of the TMZ story consists of actual quotes from the people involved on both sides! Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And the argument that it should be excluded because we can't find it on any of the major news sites is a bit of a red herring here. The New York Times, CNN, and their ilk obviously do not much care about ANY of the doings of Kat von D. 68.72.109.176 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that you might feel that way, but since you have multiple regular Wikipedia editors removing this section and several here trying to explain why this isn't appropriate for the article, please take a moment to consider that perhaps, by Wikipedia's standard, this isn't appropriate at this time. Saying things like "[they] obviously do not much care about ANY of the doings..." really makes it look like you have a bias or at least strong feelings that lead you to want this particular information in the article. Its important to understand that the majority of incidents that happen to or about celebrities will get coverage somewhere in the media, but this doesn't necessarily rise to the level of being pertinent to an encyclopedia article. Shell ^babelfish 03:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is self-evident that I believe the information should be in the article, but that certainly doesn't mean I have some personal animus against her. I certainly don't. That statement I made was to reiterate the point I made earlier: I could not find any stories of any kind about Kat von D on either CNN or the New York Times (except a very small mention of her show on NYT). However, this does not lead anyone to conclude that the whole article should be deleted. Yet I believe this is the logic being employed to exclude the section about the controversy. Anyway, it seems that our disagreement really comes down to word definitions. Not only do we not agree on the definition of the word "reliable", it would seem we also have different notions of "multiple" and "several". Dhris (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (sorry, I kept forgetting to log in earlier)

Well, the more I look, the more I agree that there's a broader problem of lousy sources. A signficant amount of material could be removed. For instance, her ancestry is badly sourced, and if you remove stuff like that, I'll support you. Perhaps, this explains why Italian Wikipedia deleted her bio. Anyway, my priority is material that could be deemed defamatory (e.g. stuff people can and do sue over). --Rob (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are different issues that can be discussed separately. I agree that the article would benefit from some serious edits. But your concern about defamation or a lawsuit is absolutely misplaced the case of the controversy section. But since I'm clearly not going to convince either of you, and I certainly don't find the vague "TMZ is unreliable" argument remotely convincing, it's probably time to solicit some other opinions.Dhris (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(out-dent)Here's some other thoughts: This "controversy" was only covered on a website that bills itself as celebrity gossip and rumor. Again, there's several problems there - your looking at only one source, the source clearly defines itself as presenting gossip and rumor and you've tried to devote an entire section, with the dubious "controversy" heading to this marginal incident. I'm pretty sure this has all been said before during this discussion, but you seem to have missed that while latching on to the fact that TMZ is unlikely to meet the standard for sources on biographies of living people. If you'd like some other opinions, I'd suggest an article RfC might be a good way to go - this and other ideas on how to engage more editors from the community can be found at WP:DR. Shell ^babelfish 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not missed any of these points. In fact, I have responded to all of them more than once in the course of this discussion, as you can (I assume) clearly read above. It is obvious that at this point any continued discussion will just mean repeating ourselves, even if we do bill our further rehashes as "other thoughts". Dhris (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've missing something, you've disputed the assertion that TMZ is unreliable by Wikipedia standards and you've argued that the information should be included because you aren't going to be able to find better sources. The first, you're welcome to get more opinions on - there's even a reliable sources noticeboard that offers a quick way to get other people's thoughts. The second is not a defensible position, a lack of coverage on a subject doesn't mean that the standards for sources can be lowered, it means that less is included. Shell ^babelfish 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

LA INK on DVD?

Does anyone know if La Ink is available on dvd yet?143.216.49.250 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Marc.S

According to Amazon.com, yes. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

Should a MySpace link to a fan page be included in the external links? It's not her official page...and the link that I included for Sephora was taken down...what constitues a good link? Sugarnova (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Definitely not appropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also abuse

Can someone please rewrite this article and remove the 1,263 occurrences of the word "also"? 97.81.249.107 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed some of them, there still several. --FailureAtDeath (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Von or von

Just a minor detail, but is "Von" really capitalised? In German it never is and her name does seems to be of German descent. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'von' is an affectation, so it probably doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.170.249 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Kat's make up

How can I find out make about her make up line? Sandy 10/29/08

Kat Von D's Book

Has Kat Von D's book been released yet, if so will it have an article on wikepedia?143.216.49.250 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Marc.S

It's out...it's also $30...but worth it. It's put together very well, and encompasses her life and career. Sugarnova (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Came here to address the second part of the question. If someone wanted to create an article for the book, I would support it. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography

I was wondering if anyone could improve the biography section, the one in this article tells nothing about Kat Von D's child life or anything. Thanks--FailureAtDeath (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the Guinness Record information regarding the current holder. I could find no credible instance of Hollis Cantrell breaking the record as the previous link was to a Newspaper-affiliated blog. Guinness, however, has no record of Cantrell in their archives. There is an article about a Tyler, TX tattoo artist who did break the record. This comes with a photo, adding credibility to the claim. I didn't even change the sentence, just "Hollis Cantrell" to "Derek Kastning" and "801" to "726."--Richiesullivan (talk) 17:31 9 February 2010

Children

I just wondered if Kat has any children, I remember seeing a photo of her a few years ago looking very pregnant and I think (but not sure) that she confirmed her pregnancy at the time. Many thanks 86.29.227.30 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Like? Like? Maybe do you think she's an idiot? Watch one episode of her nonsense and you'll realize she's a pop culture waste of skin.

-Peter S. CANADA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.221.92 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And that answers my question how? 86.9.248.175 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Kat has never been pregnant. She has said before that she doesn't want children. How is she an idiot, though, Canada? Or a "pop culture waste of skin?" I mean, I'm not some diehard fan of hers but she seems intelligent to me and she's recognized as one of the best tattooers in the business. Especially for portraits. 67.187.245.33 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification

I'm trying to start a Wikiproject on Body Modification, if anyone wants to join go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

????

wasnt she pregnant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.229.156 (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity the 2nd

What the hell is standing in the category section??? JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS BORN IN MEXICO DOESN'T MEANS THAT SHE IS OF MEXICAN ANCESTRY, SHE WAS ONLY BORN THERE THAT'S IT!!!!!! ARGENTINE DESCENT JUST BECAUSE HER PARENTS WAS BORN THERE????????

Here from her website: "Her father René Drachenberg and her mother Sylvia Galeano were both born in Argentina, though René's family origins were German and Sylvia's Spanish-Italian."

So Completely wrong are the following categories: Mexican of Argentine descent, and everything with Mexican

She is an American of German and Spanish/Italian descent that's it, don't let her look like a gipsy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.edt (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Ouch. I was born in the U.S., but don't call me a Merkin. I want to repatriate to Britain. I think I had some ancestors there about two hundred years ago at the most recent. PBF1974 (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Musical Tastes

I'm not quite sure why her musical tastes are worthy of inclusion. It's hardly relevant to why she is famous and, frankly, she's not associated with music beyond having some logo tattoos and dating musicians. 76.183.228.143 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Oh, on the contrary, user number.number.number, everyone wants to know whom their pop culture icons like in terms of music! I like Lady GaGa and I am straight. Strange, huh? PBF1974 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mexican?

I don't agree that 'Mexican-born' is more important than 'American.' If Kat is American by self-identification, then that's the nationality that should go in the lede, isn't it? Details of her birth are already in the biography section. Vince, can you explain the change you want to make here, and why you think Mexico is more important than America to Von D's identification? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) first. O Fenian (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because the cat gave birth to a litter on the stove doesn't make the kittens biscuits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing tag

Unless anyone objects, I'd like to remove the "more citations" tag. There are over 20 footnoted citations, and for anything not currently cited, we can add in-text tags where needed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection or any other comment in over a month, I'll remove the tag. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Kat-Mexican

Kat Von D was born in Mexico therefore that makes her a Mexican....much like any other person that origins come from Europe or another country,if they were born in the U.S. it makes them American.... much like me my parents origins are from Italy and Spain that migrated to Mexico in the early 1800's my great,grandparents and parents were born in Mexico..so that in itself makes them Mexican ,as for myself i was born in the U.S. wich makes me Mexican-American... Kat Von D is a Mexican Tattoo Artist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.111.222 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Being born in Mexico simply means she was born in Mexico. In addition, the article is correct according to WP:MOSBIO. O Fenian (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexican NOT American

At the start keep it "Mexican-born" American tattoo artist not just American, she was not born in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince123456789 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Also stop your disruptive edit warring, since you have just been blocked for it as an IP, and immediately resumed edit warring upon expiration. O Fenian (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't give a monkeys what that says... she is not American she is Mexican-born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince123456789 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not interesting in bowing down to what you want, we will stick with what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) says, which is "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". So unless you have anything relevant to Wikipedia guidelines and policies to say this discussion will be very pointless. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you realise how stupid it sounds? When people click on the page there are going to think she was born in USA, "American" when she was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I, for one, vote that she is American, not Mexican. There's no reason to find that she claims Mexican citizenship or nationality. She seems to be quite happy being American. If Mexican nationalists want her, that's good, because she's kind of embarassing being a sideshow freak and all, but unfortunately she's ours. PBF1974 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to the consensus; she is Mexican. Her mother is a Mexican of various generations of "Spanish-Italian" descent (Like 75% of Mexicans); and her Father is of Argentinian parents born in Mexico (also Latino) also of various generations of "German" descent in Argentina ( like 95% of Argentinians). He can have the German last name that doesn’t make him German. She was born in Mexico; and she lived there until 4 (which by that time you already are aware of your identity). And she moved to LA (which is as Mexican as Mexico). I think she is ashamed of being Mexican/Hispanic and make stupid stories of self-importance; she wants to be German, not even American. She is a poser. Her father and mother speak Spanish and are Hispanic/Latinos; her brothers and sister were also born in Mexico and are older than she is. She is just another Mexican claiming some diluted blood, and a German wanna be. For me she is just a poser. She is not even pure Argentinian. I am an Argentinian with a German lastname and an Irish second lastname (two last names as is the spanish costum). I was born in Nicaragua, lived in Mexico and in USA for half my life… Should I use the "von" also? Does that make me German… !?!? She just wants to construct a fake bio. And you fan boys are helping with your non neutral point of view. She is a Mexican by birth and Hispanic-Latino by heritage. Even if you don't like it; and even if she doesn't like it. BorSilente (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

All your observations about her personal feelings about her cultural identity may well be valid. They're just your personal conjecture , though, and I'm sure you can see how Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, can't use personal conjecture but has to rely on reliable-source verification and on standards derived from what are now years of consensus. The Manual of Style for biographies dictates a different description than yours. This might be an argument to take to that page's Talk page. Unless and until that policy changes, though, we have to abide by it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

German and Swedish sources

For the English-language Wikipedia, when quoting a source in a different language, we must provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation. Please see WP:NOENG. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the only place that she ever gives a "von" in her birth name is when she tells that to Germans, that seems suspect — particularly when he parents don't use "von" in their names. This would be a more credible claim if she ever said it in an English-language interview. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me translate it for you... I´m German...:

"sueddeutsche.de: Kat, Ihr Nachname ist von Drachenberg. Das ist ein deutscher Name...

Kat von D: Ja, es gibt sogar die Burg "von Drachenberg" irgendwo im Süden Deutschlands, die gehört Verwandten von mir. Ich habe eine Postkarte, war aber noch nie dort..."

Translation:

"sueddeutsche.de: Kat, your surname is von Drachenberg. That is a German name...

Kat von D: Yes, there is a castle "von Drachenberg" somewhere in South Germany, which is owned by some of my relatives. I've got a postcard, but I was never there."

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Kat von D ist die Abkürzung für Katherine von Drachenberg...

Kat von D: Ja, meine Großmutter väterlicherseits ist Deutsche. Irgendwo in Süddeutschland gibt es sogar eine Burg dieses Namens..."

Translation:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Kat von D is the abbreviation of Katherine von Drachenberg...

Kat von D: Yes, my fathers mother is German. Somewhere in South Germany there is a castle with this name..."

-- StealthFX9 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'von' in her name is spurious. Incidentally, her claim regarding her 'relatives' owning a 'von drachenburg' castle (as above) is also completely bogus. An account of the castle's actual history is given here 86.179.170.249 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

...wrong, the reference you are giving here is about "Schloß Drachenburg" not "Schloß Drachenberg"; it's only a vowel, but that makes the difference! (dragons-castle vs. dragons-mountain)--IIIraute (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, there is no proof that the castle is in any way related to her, other than her unsubstantiated claim. And it doesn't matter. Her own bio on her official site does not give "von," she does not explicitly give "von," and no third-party sources confirm "von." This is all your POV interpretation that other editors — including the one who added these foreign-language sources — disagrees with. You are pushing a non-consensus POV, and because of that, this is going to result in a long and contentious RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What you are writing here is simply not true. Two major secondary sources state her name as "von Drachenberg". Focus magazine: "Die Tätowiererin Kat von D, eigentlich Katherine von Drachenberg..."http://www.focus.de/fotos/die-taetowiererin-kat-von-d-eigentlich-katherine-von-drachenberg_mid_982147.html and Mediagroup RP: "Der volle Name von Kat von D. deutet auf ihre deutschen Wurzeln: Sie heißt Katherine von Drachenberg..." http://www.rp-online.de/gesellschaft/leute/schrill-und-schoen-kat-von-drachenberg-1.2017518 Focus is a German weekly news magazine distributed throughout Germany. It is the third-largest weekly news magazine in Germany with a circulation of ca. 750,000. The Rheinische Post is a major German regional daily newspaper, published since 1946 with an average circulation of about 400,000. What's POV about that?--IIIraute (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I understand why it's common format in the German language to phrase it the way they're phrasing it.

But she is very careful, perhaps out of respect for her father, to not answer the question directly. In one, she changes subject to talk about a castle that may or may not, we don't know, be in her family. In the other, she says only that her father's mother is German. Other editors, not just me, interpret that differently from you. Interpretation by definition is a form of POV. That's why we can only say that which is concrete: "In two German interviews, she gives her name as..." while only saying about her father what her official biography says. Phrasing it this way, as past editors have done after much discussion, eliminates the POV.

The fact that different editors read her translated comments differently clearly indicates that issues of interpretation exist. In those cases, we go with the safest, most conservative and thus most accurate description. There's no ambiguity in her official bio. But there is ambiguity here. Please don't simply dismiss multiple other editors' views. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

NYpost:"...Von D, whose real name is Katherine von Drachenberg..."http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/another_relationship_ends_for_jesse_ok6ZNisK1exZ89dq6NrGLN - or maybe, CBSnews: "...Von D (whose real name is Katherine Von Drachenberg)"http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20083408-10391698.html - or the DailyMail: "...Kat, real name Katherine Von Drachenberg..."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303687/Jesse-James-enjoys-dinner-reality-star-Kat-Von-D.html etc, etc. There are major US media-networks that claim that "Katherine von Drachenberg" is her name. What you are doing, is speculation.--IIIraute (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we're talking about two different things.

We say in the lead she's given her name Katherine von Drachenberg. That's not the issue. No one's arguing about that.

My and other editors' point is that she gives her father's name as Drachenberg. No one's talking about her. We're talking about her father's name. That is a separate issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You are speculating (without any proof) that Katherine von Drachenberg is not her name of birth.--IIIraute (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Here the official US-government documents from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" that prove that her real name of birth is "KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG". http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85049892#; please see her application for the trademark of "Kat Von D": http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85049892/APP20100531102050/Application/4/27-May-2010/sn/false#p=1 (see pages 1, 3 & 4). So no more speculating - no more POV! The article can now be changed to "Katherine von Drachenberg" (that really should also answer the father question above).--IIIraute (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[Untitled]

• An IP hopping anon IP 92.21.xxx.xx continues to make the same series of uncited, possibly made-up or exaggerated claims with no referencing, removing tags in the process. He has continued to insert the same uncited claims by reverting two registered editors, at least one of whom has gone to two of these IP pages to explain policy and urge discussion, which has been rebuffed. Requesting semi-protection from anon IPs.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done This is not the place to request page protection; please see WP:RPP. Thank you, Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Kat Von D is no longer in a relationship.

This is according to a recent blog like post on her official facebook

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/kat-von-d/odds-and-ends/10150327557586162

Just thought I should make that clear. :)

--99.108.248.29 (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)HypoAllergenicJin

Celebrity Facebook pages can be faked — it happens all the time and Wikipedia has been subjected to hoaxes. I'm not saying it's the case here, only that it has happened frequently. If this is legitimate, this news will, given the high press coverage for Von D, make it into the mainstream press, where it can be cited. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Social networking sites are not considered reliable sources under WP:USERG, unless it can be independently verified that the one in question is the official page of the subject. We need either credentialed secondary sources independent of the subject, or in the case of a self-published source, one that can be affirmed to be Von D's. Nightscream (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Alex Orbison.

The section on Kat's relationships completely ignores her 2008 relationship with Alex Orbison, (son of singer Roy Orbison.) This needs to be added.

144.191.148.3 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Parallax3D

Contactmusic.com is an aggregate site that doesn't do original reporting, as far as I can tell. However, Alex and Kat are mentioned in this L.A. Weekly article [1] and Zap2it.com [2], which are both journalistic sites. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

LA Weekly hasn't been a reliable source since it notoriously did away with its factchecking. The zap2it page is a hosted gossip blog which doesn't appear to meet BLP/RS. Celebrity dating histories generally aren't encyclopedic, especially for the Z-list ones. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Name of Kat Von D's father

Request comment on the last name of Kat Von D's father, which Kat Von D's official biography gives as "Drachenberg," with no "von."--Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Drachenberg - At Kat Von D's official biography here, the pertinent passage reads: "Her father René Drachenberg and her mother Sylvia Galeano were both born in Argentina, though René's family origins were German and Sylvia's Spanish-Italian." No citation appears to exist for "René von Drachenberg"; Google hits turn up only mirror sites of when this Wikipedia page inaccurately gave his name as "von Drachenberg." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• von Drachenberg: The official US-government documents from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" that prove that her real name of birth is "KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG". http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85049892#; please see her application for the trademark of "Kat Von D": http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85049892/APP20100531102050/Application/4/27-May-2010/sn/false#p=1 (see pages 1, 3 & 4). Where did she get that name from, if not from her father?--IIIraute (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • As even you must see, given that you started another RfC, these are two separate issues. She states plainly on her official site that her father's last name is solely "Drachenberg". In the absence of her ever claiming different about her father's name, I don't see what the debate is about: She states her father's last name plainly in black-and-white. Your post above is irrelevant, because it's not what we're discussing. We're not discussing her present, adult name. We're discussing her father's name. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes, apart from the three German interviews she has given where she says that her Name is "von Drachenberg", that she has relatives in Germany that still own the family castle and that we now have official US government documents that prove her name to be "Katherine von Drachenberg". Apart from that, I can see your point. She MUST have changed her name during adulthood, although there isn't a single source for that - if Tenebrae says so! --IIIraute (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • NEW SOURCE: Kat von D, High Voltage Tattoo - The autobiography of Kat Von D, HarperCollins Publishers, 2009. (ISBN 9780061684388) - Excerpt (Chapter One), page 15, Highway to Hell: "The first person who ever held me was my grandfather, Carlos Von Drachenberg. He was the doctor who delivered me in March 1982, in Montemorelos, Nuevo León, Mexico. I come from a long line of doctors." & "My grandmother, Clara Von Drachenberg, was an inspiration for me when it came to music and art. She classically trained my siblings and me to play the piano." We are talking about the printed autobiography by Katherine von Drachenberg, as she calles herself on page 9 (not the online bio from a friend). Convinced?--IIIraute (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

further source - Kat von D, The Tattoo Chronicles, HarperCollins Publishers, 2010. (ISBN 9780061953361) - Excerpt, page 10. "I don't really like to blame my moments of sadness or depression on what some might consider a clinical diagnosis, although my father told me about how the Von Drachenbergs have had to battle severe depression throughout our history". - on page 22. she is writing about her brother and her sister: "Karoline & Michael Von Drachenberg, Without you - I'm nothing".--IIIraute (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Three sources state "born" von Drachenberg:

USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2010-10-28-katvond28_ST_N.htm

LosAngelesTimes:http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/08/entertainment/et-laink8

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/11/women.leoniecooper --IIIraute (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Kat Von D did write the following in her autobiography: Von D, Kat (2009). High Voltage Tattoo - The Autobiography of Kat Von D. HarperCollins, ISBN 9780061684388.:

page 55: "Portrait of my father: Black-and-gray portrait of my father, Rene Von Drachenberg, in a high-school photo taken in Argentina in the 1960s."

page 57: Portrait of my beautiful mother: This black-and-gray portrait of my mother, Silvia von Drachenberg, is based on a photo taken by my dad just before they got married."

page 73: "My full last name, von Drachenberg. Von Drachenberg means "dragon of the mountain" or ""dragon mountain"."

I guess, that should be enough?--IIIraute (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• von D or Drachenberg: The preposition von in her full name has, so far, been claimed only by herself, in her autobiography, her press releases and her application for the relevant patent. On the other hand, the only third-party source that cites her name and her family's name without the preposition is a fan website, which, however contains an ostensibly first-person account. The newspaper articles cited above are merely (and obviously) copying her press releases, as far as her name and family background are concerned. Wikipedia rules direct editors to use sources published or written by the article's subject about themselves "only if [the material]...is not unduly self-serving...[and] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Moreover, the relevant rule makes it clear that "the article [cannot be] based primarily on such sources." My conclusion: The text should include the story behind the preposition's disputed origin, as related by third-party sources, per BLP. When referring to her person in the article, we should use either her stage name "von D," or "Drachenberg". -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Katherine von Drachenberg or Katherine Drachenberg

Request comment on Kat Von D's real name. In her official biography she is not called once "Katherine Drachenberg", however several major secondary sources give her name as "Katherine von Drachenberg".IIIraute (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)--IIIraute (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Katherine von Drachenberg -NY Post:"...Von D, whose real name is Katherine von Drachenberg..." ; CBS news: "...Von D (whose real name is Katherine Von Drachenberg)": DailyMail: "...Kat, real name Katherine Von Drachenberg..." etc, etc. Please also see the talk (3. her real name & 35. German and Swedish sources). She also calls herself "Katherine von Drachenberg" on her facebook account; on IMDB her name is given as "Katherine von Drachenberg" ; on the back of her LAink dvd she is called "Katherine von Drachenberg" (Amazon link); so does rottentomatoes, The LA Times writes "...gathered to help Kat Von D (born Katherine Von Drachenberg), star of TLC's..." --IIIraute (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I now have found official US-government documents from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" that prove that her real name of birth is "KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG". (link); please see her application for the trademark of "Kat Von D": (link, see pages 1, 3 & 4). So, no more speculating - no more POV! The article can now be changed to "Katherine von Drachenberg" (that should also answer the father question above).--IIIraute (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Great. I agree with you then. Per the US trademark application, which was never cited before, her adult name is von Drachenberg. Lots of people change their names in adulthood, so this is perfectly common. So if we agree on her adult name, and no other editor disagrees with us, there's no argument and we can close this RfC. Now let's please deal in good faith with the one above.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Great that you agree!?! There are official US government documents that state that "Katherine von Drachenberg" is her name. Now you say she has changed her name? Where do you take the information from that she has changed her name? That is pure speculation. Just because one of her friends wrote in her bio that her fathers name is Rene Drachenberg....?? It could say anything in that bio. You have changed the article again, giving her name of birth as "Katherine Drachenberg" without having any reliable source for that, instead you choose to ignore official government documents. Although you know better, you are manipulating the article just to prove your POV. I have no idea what to say now?? That is really getting ridiculous!--IIIraute (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to please stop being uncivil and emotional.

In the United States, particularly years ago, it was absolutely standard in intact American families for children to talk the father's last name. She herself, on her official site, on her official, personally approved biography, gives her father's last name as Drachenberg. For you to assume that her birth name is anything but that is a bit remarkable; infants and toddlers don't go to court to petition for a name change. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

She was born in MEXICO! and she also lived there to the age of 4. So why are you talking about the USA?

How do you know it wasn't the father who decided to drop his "von" after her birth. In her autobiography both of her grandparents names are given as "von Drachenberg", in the same autobiography her own name is given as "von Drachenberg"; there are official US government documents that state her name as "von Drachenberg", so do countless secondary sources, major newspapers, books, her facebook account, IMDb, her personal interviews, all other wikipedia articles in other languages, etc, etc. Where does this claim that her name is "Drachenberg" only, come from anyway... just because a friend of her did write this? It is common practice for aristocratic people to not use their "von", however that doesn't mean that it isn't part of their name. Why do you keep ignoring her own autobiography? If necessary I'll find her school record and birth cerificate.--IIIraute (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a breath and listen to yourself. You're getting very emotional, and there's no need for that.

To respond to your points: You keep saying a "a friend wrote this." This is irrelevant and a bit of smokescreen, perhaps, since no one allows anything to go into their official biography without their approval. It doesn't matter who wrote it. It's her official site and her official bio, with her approval.

I'm not ignoring anything. Nothing we've seenm so far has her saying that she was born "von Drachenberg." All that we know is that she herself gives her father's name as "Drachenberg." It is absolutely standard in intact American families that children take their father's name. That she gives "von Drachenberg" as her adult name is not in question, so there's no reason to keep on about that; I said I agree (to which you were unnecessarily snippy and rude; there is no reason for that, as I'm being polite with you).

Your post makes speculations about what some aristocratic people may or may not do, and maybe her father dropped the von after she was born, etc. All of that is speculation. All we know — in that we have a reliable-source citation — is that her father's name is Drachenberg, and unless an RS citation shows otherwise, I think most admins or anyone else looking at this would have no reason to doubt that that is her birth name.

Speaking of which: An admin asked us to go to dispute resolution. I've asked you politely on your page if you're amenable. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a polite response, yes or no. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated in two books written by Kat von D, one of them being her autobiography, both of her grandparents have the name "von Drachenberg", both, her brother and her sister have the name "von Drachenberg", she has the name "von Drachenberg" as proven through several official US government documents her name is "von Drachenberg" - and you are still following the idea that she was not born with that name but that she did change her name during adulthood - and her grandparents and brother and sister did also change their names..... Are you serious?

P.S. I already gave you an answer on my talk page.--IIIraute (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, no one is disagreeing as to what they call themselves as adults. But she herself says her father dropped the "von" — as many people do when they come to the New World. I don't know what to say to respond to the fact you find it so inconceivable that someone making a life for themselves in the Americas would drop a European affectation in order to be more North American. This happens all the time, and you perhaps show a culturally ingrained unwillingness to accept the fact that Kat herself says her father's name was simply Drachenberg. According to Kat herself, he dropped the "von." You need to accept what she says in black-and-white. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your claim is highly speculative - you are making this up - where did she say that? give a source!

and even if so - how do you know that it wasn't after her birth that he decided to drop his title? You just discredited your own argument!--IIIraute (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. No, I didn't. Thousands and thousands of articles give people's last names and their parents' last names. In none of them do we make assumptions that their names are anything but what is given. All we know per WP:RS is that her father's last name is Drachenberg. Any speculation as to when he may have changed that from von Drachenberg is original-research analysis, which Wikipedia disallows. All we can state is what we know: That her official bio gives his last name as Drachenberg. Per differing sources including herself (and neither the USA Today or LA Times has her herself stating von Drachenberg, while her official bio states Drachneberg) her birth name is either von Drachenberg or Drachenbeg.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

May I quote you: "But she herself says her father dropped the "von" as many people do when they come to the New World." You do not know when he did it, do you? What does his last name have to do with her name? Her official bio does not once state that she was "born" Drachenberg. You only have a source on his name, not that she was born Drachenberg. You are the one making up the connection between his and her name without having a source (original-research analysis). You are the one speculating on how names "usually" are passed on, etc, etc. Where is the proof; the source - on exactly this case? Are you not getting this?--IIIraute (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

NEW SOURCE: Kat von D, High Voltage Tattoo - The autobiography of Kat Von D, HarperCollins Publishers, 2009. (ISBN-13: 9780061684388) - Excerpt (Chapter One), page 15, Highway to Hell: "The first person who ever held me was my grandfather, Carlos Von Drachenberg. He was the doctor who delivered me in March 1982, in Montemorelos, Nuevo León, Mexico. I come from a long line of doctors." & "My grandmother, Clara Von Drachenberg, was an inspiration for me when it came to music and art. She classically trained my siblings and me to play the piano." We are talking about the printed autobiography by Katherine von Drachenberg, as she calles herself on page 9. So, as we always knew, she did NOT change her name as an adult but was born as "Katherine von Drachenberg"!--IIIraute (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

She doesn't call herself Katherine von Drachenberg in the passage you cite above, so I'm not sure what you're saying. And again, that she calls herself that now isn't the issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are writing nonsense, everybody can look it up for themselves; apart from that it is also interesting to see a copy of her passport. --IIIraute (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, about that. This image is in a Google doc, so it's not from a public source on the Internet. Aside from being disallowed under the policy of no original research, you — whom I've already caught in a falsehood about passport laws — are suggesting that you, personally, in this age of identity theft, somehow got Kat Von D to open up her passport for you to splash on the web. Really.

I think any objective observer would say that this is highly unlikely. So that leaves, I think, three options: You Photoshopped a fake passport; you surreptitiously shot her open passport at an airport and have posted her private information for all to see; or you're a publicist or someone else with a WP:COI interest in polishing a mythology, even though Kat herself, from the lack of "von Drachenberg" in her own bio, on her own website, seems more interested in respecting her father's choice. Which is it?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is important. Per Wikipedia conflict-of-interest guidelines, you need to disclose if you have any connection with the subject. Publicists and subjects' friends and even subjects come to Wikipedia all the time to put spin on things. Tyler Shields tried to turn his Wikipedia article into his own PR site.

Because you're apparently putting someone's personal private documents online in an age of identify theft, I would ask, first, that you take it down. Second, because you're apparently violating this person's privacy, I can report this to an admin, who can track your IP address to your location and your ISP. Now, a huge number of us with no personal stake in any particular subject toil at Wikipedia voluntarily out of sense of altruism, trying to help build this free, global encyclopedia. If you're working on an article where you're not a disinterested party. It's disrespectful of all the rest of us to pretend otherwise. So I ask you: Where do you claim this passport image came from? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Further source - Kat von D, The Tattoo Chronicles, HarperCollins Publishers, 2010. (ISBN 9780061953361) - Excerpt, page 10. "I don't really like to blame my moments of sadness or depression on what some might consider a clinical diagnosis, although my father told me about how the Von Drachenbergs have had to battle severe depression throughout our history". - on page 22. she is writing about her brother and her sister: "Karoline & Michael Von Drachenberg, Without you - I'm nothing".--IIIraute (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant. What they call themselves now, today, as adults, isn't the issue. Kat says her father's name is Drachenberg without the von. Except for extremely rare, statistically insignificant exceptions, children in intact American families take their father's last name. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, look who's speculating on statistics. Apart from that: She was born in MEXICO! and she also lived there to the age of four. She wasn't even an american citizen then!!--IIIraute (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You did everything possible to manipulate the given fact that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg", persisting that her name was "Drachenberg" only. You discredited all secondary sources, interviews, the articles of major newspapersa such as the NYpost, the LaTimes, Spiegel, The DailyMail, broadcasters like ABC, CBS, etc. ,published literature, etc.etc.I had to first bring official US government documents as well as a copy of her passport until you would accept that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg".

Now, you are trying to do the same about her name of birth, speculating that she must have changed her name during adulthood, putting all your emphasis into the bio on her website that says that her father is "Rene Drachenberg" and - although it does not once - in the whole bio - directly say that her name is "Drachenberg" only, you persist on that one source, that isn't really one. You are the one making that speculative connection, just because it says that her father is called "Rene Drachenberg", so it also must be her name of birth. Again, you discredit all other sources - especially her published autobiography with a circulation of many thousand copies in which she gives both of her grandparents - as well as her own name as "von Drachenberg". In a second book written by her both, her brothers and her sisters name are given as "von Drachenberg". Redarding to your claim, her brother and sister also must have changed their names during adulthood. Again, for all those claims, you do not have a sigle source. Also, you discredit again several sources, such as from major newspapers and magazines that say that she was "born" von Drachenberg. So what's the point?--IIIraute (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Three sources that state "born" von Drachenberg:

USA Today

LA Times

The Guardian--IIIraute (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the USPTO materials, it seems reasonable to conclude that her name is currently Katherine von Drachenberg. But without seeing her birth certificate or early school records, it does not seem reasonable to make definite assertions about a name change. So why try to? I suppose you could check court records to see if a name change petition shows up. Although people don't really have to go through a formal name change to use a new name. You could state that she has also been referred to in some sources as Katherine Drachenberg. There is only so much research that can reasonably be done and this does not look like a major issue to me, so long as the other name is mentioned as how she has also been referred to.Coaster92 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Break

Given the latest edits IIIraute and I have made, my edits today leave both his and my existing edits in place, and now have raw URLs converted into full cites. I moved her present name into the first sentence of her biography to avoid having it appear, redundantly, twice in the lead, and expanded this with the information that Kat Von D is a registered trademark. I gave full quotes for IIIraute's citations; two cites from such high-RS sources as USA Today and LA Times are sufficient, so to avoid overciting, I removed The Guardian. Everything IIIraute needed to state is stated and cited. The one point I needed to state is stated is cited. Both sides are balanced with WP:RS citations. Are we done and is the article stable now? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You removed her real name. Her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg" and that will go into the article. There are official US-government documents from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" that prove that her real name is "KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG". (link); please see her application for the trademark of "Kat Von D": link)

You also made very clear yourself that your "source" does not apply to her name of birth, as you do not know when her father decided to drop his "von". The only thing your quote is proving is that her father is NOW called Drachenberg. I however did bring three sources that say literally "born" von Drachenberg. It doesn't say that once in your source. My references are USAToday, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian. The three of them together have a daily circulation of approx. 2,000,000 copies. I think that should do.--IIIraute (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing with you. I even converted your raw URLs to full citations. She says her name is von Drachenberg now, and two highly WP:RS cites say that was her birth name. And she herself says her father's name is Drachenberg. Children take their father's last name. Both points are made in the article. There's nothing else to do unless you want to go to dispute resolution. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote you: "Children take their father's last name." Where does this come from? What kind of claim is this? Is this a law, a God given rule? Where do you take this information from; especially for our case here. Please explain!--IIIraute (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to argue reductio ad absurdumin in dispute resolution, I'd be happy to. You'd be going counter to thousands upon thousands of articles which don't cite birth certificates. I believe you're letting this become a personal obsession with you.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you again - and I quote you: "Children take their father's last name." Where does this come from? What kind of claim is this? Is this a law, a God given rule? Where do you take this information from; especially for our case here. Why do you not simply answer the question? There are MAJOR sources that claim different. Your source is more than thin. Open a dispute resolution if you want to; any academic thinking person will understand my argument. Your source lives of the assumption that one has to take the father' name at birth; but that is not true. I thought you are such a name specialist. She could also have been named after her mother. So then she was born Katherine Galeano? Look Tenebrae, let me explain to you why the source you are giving is not very suitable:

"Her father René Drachenberg and her mother Sylvia Galeano were both born in Argentina, though René's family origins were German and Sylvia's Spanish-Italian."

How do you know that she did not get her mother's name at her birth?; why do they have different names in this quote anyway? Where they not married at her birth? Or maybe, since we know that her parents did get divorced a while ago, she might give her parents names as they are using them today. The source makes no clear statment on her name of birth. For the case the source gives both of her parents names of birth; how can this be possible - as, in your logic - her father must have received his father's name, and that is - as we know - Carlos von Drachenberg.

Your source simply states that her father's name is Drachenberg; nothing else - everything else is specualtive.

But what we do have, is three sources that literally state: "born von Drachenberg", (USAToday, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian). That will convince any academic! Purely source - no assumptions--IIIraute (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. No, no personal obsession. I guess in a normal case one wouldn't have to go through this. But when one has a grandmother, a grandfather, a brother and a sister that are all named "von Drachenberg", as well as three high profile sources that do state that she was born as "von Drachenberg" as well, the matter is a different one.--IIIraute (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a lot of speculation in your 22:34 post. What isn't speculative is that in Western civilization, children take their father's last name except in statistically insignificant cases that biographers routinely note. She never gies her birth name von Drachenberg. Reliable sources do, and they are rightly cited in footnotes. Her only comment on the matter is her father's name. Seeing as how we cannot ignore that, and how it casts a doubt on non-Kat sources, we need to mention it. If we don't say both, we're picking sides and that's POV. Again I say, let's let a mediator handle this. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I quote you: "What isn't speculative is that in Western civilization, children take their father's last name except in statistically insignificant cases that biographers routinely note." ...so what are the chances? Is that empirical research, or a rule of thumb? Can you bring some sources a bit more specific? Your argument is basically "this is how it's usually done", so it must be her name. Where did you take this information from; especially for our special case here, since the father's and daughter's name do not match. Can't you see that you are speculating on (obviously unknown) statistics? Is that all you have to offer?--IIIraute (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You really are grasping at straws, and for what? To push a single POV? In the absence of a definitive statement of her birth name by Kat herself, her approved statement on her official site cannot be blithely ignored. Where there is any doubt, we present all the available information and let the readers decide for themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

...and that statement is about her father's name only - not her name at birth. Full stop!--IIIraute (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I doubt any admin will feel the need to have me quote from genealogy textbooks to show that children take their father's last name in all but a statistically insignificant number of cases.

Where there is doubt, as there is here, we present all the evidence and the let the reader decide. Otherwise, it's POV to present one side or the other. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Kat Von D did write the following in her autobiography: Von D, Kat (2009). High Voltage Tattoo - The Autobiography of Kat Von D. HarperCollins, ISBN 9780061684388.:

page 55: "Portrait of my father: Black-and-gray portrait of my father, Rene Von Drachenberg, in a high-school photo taken in Argentina in the 1960s."

page 57: Portrait of my beautiful mother: This black-and-gray portrait of my mother, Silvia von Drachenberg, is based on a photo taken by my dad just before they got married."

page 73: "My full last name, von Drachenberg. Von Drachenberg means "dragon of the mountain" or ""dragon mountain"."

Will that do the job?--IIIraute (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied at talk; edits made. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Katherine von Drachenberg because that is what is in the sources. FurrySings (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This has long been settled; wording was agreed on weeks ago after lengthy discussion. What would you have changed? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• von D or Drachenberg: The preposition von in her full name has, so far, been claimed only by herself, in her autobiography, her press releases and her application for the relevant patent. On the other hand, the only third-party source that cites her name and her family's name without the preposition is a fan website, which, however contains an ostensibly first-person account. The newspaper articles cited above are merely (and obviously) copying her press releases, as far as her name and family background are concerned. Wikipedia rules direct editors to use sources published or written by the article's subject about themselves "only if [the material]...is not unduly self-serving...[and] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Moreover, the relevant rule makes it clear that "the article [cannot be] based primarily on such sources." My conclusion: The text should include the story behind the preposition's disputed origin, as related by third-party sources, per BLP. When referring to her person in the article, we should use either her stage name "von D," or "Drachenberg". -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This will sound ironic given my initial stance, but factually speaking it's not actually a fan site that says her father's name is simply Drachenberg; it's Von D's official website. So that, too, comes from her. The fact a writer wrote her biography on her official site isn't really relevant; people and business hire writers all the time to write content for websites.

If there are WP:RS third-party publications discussing the name dispute, yes, of course, we should cite them. I don't believe IIIraute or I, despite much time and effort, found such a discussion in a magazine, newspaper, book or website. Doesn't mean it's not out there — just that we couldn't find it after a month or two of searching. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)