Talk:Kendra Scott

Removal of lawsuit - please share your opinions.

Hi everyone. I'd like to get some additional input on the recent double removal of the lawsuit that Kendra Scott's company regarding copyright infringement. I think it has the right to be included in the article, as it comes from a neutral reliable third party source, the Austin Business Journal. You can read a bit of the discussion, which took place on a user talk page - see User_talk:Modern.Jewelry.Historian#Kendra_Scott here. I do not believe that this is promotional, and I do not believe that it is gossip, etc. Also, please note: I have personal or professional connect to Kendra Scott. I don't even wear her jewelery, nor did I have any idea who she was until I wrote the article after reading about her in an Austin magazine online. So I'm pretty surprised that I might have written a "too promotional" article! I also don't care about what happens with the lawsuit. She sued someone about copyright, and it's public news, why not include it? SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The text under discussion is the following:

In 2012, the company filed lawsuit for copyright infringement against Anne Ryan LLC, a San Antonio, Texas jewelry company. Scott owns 24 copyrighted jewelry designs and Anne Ryan is accused of violating four of those designs.

• Garza, Vicky (15 June 2012). "Kendra Scott accuses S.A. company of copying her designs". Austin Business Journal. Retrieved 26 October 2012.

"Filed suit" is the proper wording. I think this bit should remain in the article. It is true that many, many lawsuits are filed every day and that most do not merit mention. This one, however, was reported by the Austin print edition of Business Journal which brings it up in notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I think the inclusion of mention of the lawsuit is appropriate, and should be restored. I do have one caution for SarahStierch though related to a different edit, per WP:SELFPUB we do consider people to be reliable sources on themselves, as long as the material isn't unduly self-serving. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I, too, believe the lawsuit deserves mention in the article. My only concern was how the article originally phrased the issue, which was not NPOV. Rephrasing the sentence, IMO, was the way to go, and I re-worded it at that time. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• KS-K+D-AUSTIN-27916.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Change to Kendra Scott Marital Status

• What I think should be changed: Kendra Scott Marital Status
• Why it should be changed: Kendra Scott made a statement on her blog that she finalized her divorce in September 2020. The divorce was also reported in an interview with Austin Woman Magazine on October 23, 2020.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://blog.kendrascott.com/blog/kendras-tips-and-tricks-for-entrepreneurs; https://atxwoman.com/kendra-scott-shark-tank/

70.112.171.190 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, blogs and interviews (as PRIMARY sources) are fine for personal details but (as someone questioned on IRC) a divorce also involves someone else (i.e. failing point #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF). Is the link provided enough to merit a change? Primefac (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This information has already been added to the article, so I am closing this request edit ticket. If you have any questions, please use the WP:HELPDESK and if you would like to open a new request please follow the instructions on Template:Request edit/Instructions. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

A few weeks back, Jéské Couriano added a UDP tag which was recently removed by an IP in a series of edits that did not make any substantive changes to the article text. I agree with the placement of the UDP tag and have therefore reinstated it. My concerns are twofold:

• The article reads like a PR bio; it focuses excessively on awards an philanthropy, as well as well as framing Scott's life experiences as a journey from the bottom to the top; while that may be true, I feel that the framing and tone are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article.
• The article has been edited by a number of suspicious accounts, some of which have since been blocked for socking ([1], [2]) or spam ([3]); there are more, those are just two examples.

Hence, I believe that the article needs a thorough examination and likely a significant rewrite. Since no significant substantive changes have been made in the meantime, I think that removal of the tag is not appropriate at this time. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Kendra has been married 4 times, not 3.

Kendra has been married 4 times, not 3. Her 2nd husband was much older and is who funded her business. 2603:8080:6D02:3B00:3D3F:6A8F:834B:3AA0 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

We would need sources to support this statement. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)