Talk:Kathy Ireland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article is not neutral, and apart from that it is poorly written. I'm not saying "poorly written" to engage in an edit-war; I literally mean that it has too many major grammatical errors to be taken seriously. Also, there are too many vague metaphors to imply that Ireland traded in her "luxurious silk dresses for a business suit" and after reading the article, I'm still completely uncertain as to what, exactly, Ireland "designs". Finally, the comparisons to other entertainers are flat-out bizarre. No other encyclopedia article is written this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.72.4 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly, Kathy traces her ancestry to Daniel Boone. Trekphiler 15:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen her complete first name as Katherine and as Kathleen. Does anyone have a source as to what is her actual complete name?

March 8 or March 20

Can anyone prove whether Kathy was born March 8 or March 20? The date changes once a week. Hotwine8 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Ireland family imposter?

I recently saw a bizzare Court TV program about a thirty year old black man who posed as Storm Ireland, Kathy Ireland's "sister" and conned photographers and agents out of hundreds of thousands of dollars for calendar photo shots. I have added this as a trivia item, but am having trouble finding a source. Help! Skipdownthestreet 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New version by 76.213.234.195

I have reverted the article to its version as of 00:16, 20 August 2007, before User:76.213.234.195 deleted the old text completely and replaced it written in a non-encyclopedic advertising style. Some reasons why the new text was not acceptable:

• It was full of fuzzy advertising talk ("magazines that ask her to grace their covers", "one of the most successful female entrepreneurs and designers in the world", "These products celebrate global influences") etc) instead of factual, neutral statements.
• The article should start with a definition of its subject and basic biographical data, not with hagiographical lyrics like "best friend to working mothers"
• First-name style (we are not chatting about our good buddy "Kathy" here, but writing an encyclopedia article which should keep an appropriate distance to its subject)
• The text obviously addressed the reader as a potential customer, like a good advertising should ("Kathy encourages you to vacation everyday with her innovative Style Guides TM, Aloha, Americana, Architectural, La Vida Buena, European Country, In Russian Style, Far East Dreams, and Ivory Coast."). An encyclopedia article doesn't do this.

From the user name of User:Guttmannpr, it is to be assumed that Kathy Ireland's PR representatives have been editing here. In this case, I would encourage them to read WP:COI and Wikipedia:Business_FAQ#Can I advertise my company or product on Wikipedia?.

Regards, High on a tree

Model vs. Everything Else

Kathy became famous because of her modeling, barely anything in this article mentions her modeling career, The article should include this. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article doesn't even mention Sports Illustrated. --Arteitle (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Ireland has also done a lot of other modeling besides in Sports Illustrated (which is the work of one month or just a few weeks per year). None of that work is even mentioned. What a lacking!98.67.161.238 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I have assessed this article in response to it having being raised at WP:COI/N and have found that due to an apparent COI (User:Guttmanpr being her PR company) there have been numerous WP:NPOV and WP:V violations. This edit which both removed well sourced content (presumably an ex-client) and inserted non-neutral content at the same time is particularly troubling. Until such time as they are resolved I am tagging the article {{COI}}. User:Guttmanpr is welcome to contact me for advice on how to ensure future compliance, or to refer to WP:COI. -- samj _in^out 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

KIWW only netted $10 million out of $1.4 Billion in sales?

I'm not an expert on the clothing industry, but wouldn't her company's cut be a lot bigger than just $10 million if a gross $1.4 billion as been achieved? I do know that the clothing retail business is extremely competitive and the profit margins can be as low as 5%, but based on what is stated here KIWW makes less than 1% margin. That seems unrealistically low, especially since her line of products sell at a higher price than other brands.--71.177.165.192 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to realize that the $1.4 billion gross income has to pay for all the materials and supplies used, the costs of all the factories and their land, the salary and wages for every manufacturing employee from bottom to top, the cost of heating, air conditioning, lighting, and fresh water, taxes -including customs duties, payments to designers and consultants, payments to models, costs of packaging and distributing all of the merchandise (frequently overseas!), payments to accounting companies that audit the books of the company, payments to the Board of Directors, and probably more items that I didn't think of, it might not be surprising that "just" $10 million per year goes to Kathy Ireland. Also, the estimate of $1.4 billion in gross income could very well be an over-estimate.
When it comes to companies and corporations, there is a pertinent saying: "You have to spend money to make money."98.67.161.238 (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

kiWW is a licensing company and creates brands, not the sale of goods. Walmart's revenues are 3.5% of sales or thereabouts and yet kiWW doesn't even own the retail stores, the kiWW brand creates brands and licenses design and branding. This is far different than opening retail shops and manufacturing and selling goods which kiWW doesn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borntodeal (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Christian?

The article states that "Kathy Ireland became a Christian at the age of 18, when she read the Bible out of curiosity" and cites a 700 Club interview as the source of that information. However, in that same interview it is noted that her upbringing included church attendance and knowledge of God. So, what religion was she before she "became a Christian?" I suspect that it might be more appropriate to say that she became an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian at 18, which would not negate her Christian upbringing nor denigrate the Christian beliefs of those who belong to other Christian denominations. What say ye?

Lanternshine (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Show with Hulk Hogan

She was in a show with Hulk Hogan, but I forget the name of it. It was cancelled after a few episodes. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you smarter than a 5th grader

her appearance should be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.62.112 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's minor and has nothing to do with her notability. She's been on lots of shows, but we don't list them all, nor should we. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

She wasn't. http://www.gameshownewsnet.com/prime/5thgrader3/090508.htmlRobinrobin (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What the hell?

Is that a serious lead paragraph, or is somebody fucking with us? "She is the CEO and chief designer of her design and marketing eponymous brand product marketing company"?! --Closedmouth (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Marketing Terminology

Hello there. The deletion and re-organization of the material added was not wanton destruction - it was an attempt to use the hard work and still maintain the standards needed for a biography of a living person (see:WP:BLP)

A lot of the recent work done was WP:ORIGINAL - original resourcing. A commercial website (like Amazon or Kathy Ireland's own companies, or the corporation that acts as her speaking agent) is not a preferred source for a cite. That is considered a primary source and can be used to confirm that a product or corporation exists but should NOT be used as a reference beyond that. Look for news articles, magazine articles, books, interviews with reputable sources and quote those. An encyclopedia should reflect the culminated assessment of 3rd party sources as fairly as possible.

Kathy Ireland is not her corporation. If you take a look at Martha Stewart's article, you will see that as more and more was written about her corporation over her own life, it went down from featured status to B status. The goal is featured. That said, of course the subject of the article can not be separated from their business ventures - balance must be struck.

Also, not everything a subject does is notable. Not every speech is important and including them here gives them a lot of weight, so the notability should be weighed carefully. If a reputable 3rd party source (like a newspaper) says that Ireland's keynote had impact then it should probably be included in the article. The fact that Ireland gave a keynote is not notable otherwise, and including it could be construed as coat-racking.

Wikipedia benefits from millions of hours of hard work from interested editors. However, and especially with BLP's, that work in and of itself can't always be included in an active article because it doesn't meet standards. That doesn't mean it isn't appreciated or can't, as I attempted in this case, be at least somewhat worked into meeting standards. EBY 15:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)