Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/Archive 1

Removal of Prod
The edits that removed the prod may be associated with a blocked user, Robotboy199. If not, a reason for the removal would be nice. --Stormbay (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and put it back if they don't make a note here within the next couple minutes. It was removed without an edit description (by an anon editor). -Frazzydee|&#9997; 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As per Proposed_deletion, you can list it on WP:AFD. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I leave Afd to other folks. I participate but don't initiate! --Stormbay (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know how this got kept before 2012 or 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Polish-Israeli American
Polish-Israeli American what is this ? "Polish-Israeli American" buahahha what a idiot write this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.238.116 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Carl's Jr. commercial link
I added 3 external links in a template. One of them is the Carl's Jr. commercial. Although the 30 second version is probably more commonly aired, it only has 236,554 viewers on commons, while the version that lasts a little more than a minute has 1,840,931 viewers. I included the more popular version on the page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

New Girl Season 3 episode 2
I find multiple sources saying she was expected to be in this episode http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/emily_ratajkowski_cast_in_gone_girl_blurred_lines_topless_model_is_ben_afflecks_mistress-2013-09 and www.hypable.com/2013/09/10/new-girl-season-3-episode-2-jacooz-stills-and-synopsis-released/, but no confirmation that she did appear afterwards. She is omitted from the character lists at both IMDb.com and TV.com.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Unable to source
I have cleaned up the article, but remain unable to source the statement "Her acting career began with the 2004 short film Andrew's Alteration and the 2005 independent film A Year and a Day." I have replaced this sentence with a phrase "After a pair of nondescript movie roles" until someone can find a reliable source for the content. All sources that I can find seem to be mirrors of wikipedia. The only thing that seems to predate our April 2012 inclusion of the content is this website, which bears a December 2011 date. I doubt that they are considered a WP:RS, but I have a query in at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

GQ cover in WP:LEAD
My thinking on removing the specific mention of the GQ cover in the WP:LEAD is that the LEAD should summarize the article with some editorial judgement. Ms. Ratajkowski has had several endorsements, cover appearances, feature stories in various publications, and celebrity events. In general (from my limited American perspective), elite accomplishments for models are as follows: Fashion models: Vogue covers (Paris, UK, Italian, US only), Lingerie models: Victoria's Secret Fashion Show appearances, Swimsuit models: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue appearances, Spokespersons: The face of major worldwide brands. If a model has accomplished any of these, a LEAD needs to mention it. GQ cover is just part of the mass of work that she has done that should be described in general, IMO. For a model a GQ (US) is probably a top 50 cover, but not an elite one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sports Illustrated is not a fashion magazine yet she was in the swimsuit issue. The lead should summarize her career. Her cover appearance on GQ, a men's fashion magazine, is a notable fact in her modeling career. It has certainly gained attention with the controversy at retailer Land's End. American In Brazil (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Being in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is a career highlight. It means she is an elite swimsuit model. It is basically the highest achievement for a swimsuit model. Being on the cover of American GQ is not such a big deal for a fashion model. There are a couple dozen covers that are more important and it does not mean she is an elite fashion model. She has a handful of covers, of which American GQ is probably the most notable, but I think her treats! cover was a bigger deal than her GQ cover. Her GQ work is similar to her Frederick's of Hollywood and Yamamay work that do not mean she is an elite lingerie model. If she gets in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show then we could highlight her lingerie modelling career in that way in the lead. Right now she does not have lead-worthy covers, IMO. Her fashion modelling and lingerie modelling should just be summarized in general until she has elite accomplishments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you make statements (as you did in an edit summary) to the effect that reverting your edit is vandalism (because you think you're right and hence disagree with the reversion), please read What is not vandalism carefully.  Dwpaul  Talk

GQ is perhaps the leading men's fashion magazine in the U.S. GQ has twelve covers a year with one model per cover, yet there are thousands of fashion models. To state that she was the cover model is merely to state a fact about her modeling career which should be included in a WP article. Nevertheless, I think that whether this fact should be included in the lead, or not, is a tempest in a teapot. Therefore, I will place it in the body of the article and not in the lead; it should be included, however, if WP is to be encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2014‎ (UTC)
 * The fact was already in the main body with a proper citation. For fashion models, the most elite covers are the 4 top Vogues: Vogue (magazine) (US), Vogue Paris, Vogue Italia, and Vogue (British magazine). After that other (of the 20+) Vogue magazines (Germany, Brazil, Japan, etc), Elle (magazine) (which has about a dozen versions), Mademoiselle (magazine), and maybe Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan (magazine), Vanity Fair (magazine) and Glamour (magazine) are high level covers and more probably prestigious than GQ. At least a half dozen Vogues are above US GQ and probably a few dozen other covers are more elite than American GQ, IMO. Ask the people at WP:FASHION, but I can assure you GQ is not among the top fashion covers, even though it may be the top Men's fashion mag. Nothing compares to the top 4 Vogues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention Harper's Bazaar.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. you can see a lot of leading covers here (mostly the US editions).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that the GQ cover was mentioned in a lower section. My only objective is to make WP as encyclopedic as possible by including, with neutral POV, as many relevant facts about a subject as possible. As I mentioned above, this GQ cover has led to a controversy at Land's End when the retailer had publisher Conde Nast send a free issue to its larger customers. Many objected when their children (especially teenage boys) retrieved the mail and saw the cover (and presumably the inside spread as well - wouldn't you look?). Land's End issued a public apology and said it would not happen again. What are your thoughts on mentioning this as a relevant citation, since the Blurred Lines video was also controversial (and the controversy is mentioned in the WP article)? Here is the cite:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/business/media/risque-promotion-prompts-outcry-from-lands-end-customers.html?_r=0

American In Brazil (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While we talk covers, she just got another cover: https://twitter.com/emrata/status/502567721457172481 .--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the body of the text as an addition fact. Do you want to add it? American In Brazil (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Prego--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo
Does anyone have a photo that does not violate copyright? Emily is rapidly moving up in the fashion and entertainment worlds and a photo would be appropriate. American In Brazil (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You might have to email her agency representatives to request one and get it confirmed with appropriate licensing through the commons:Commons:OTRS process. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy Hardy vs. Andy Fitzgerald
I saw the movie and did not notice this controversy. However, IMDb.com credits her as Andy Hardy, while Rotten Tomatoes credits her as Andy Fitzgerald. I trust that people who are seeing the movie are crediting her correctly. I do not know which is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen interviews stating that she played Andy Hardy and she made no effort to correct the interviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede
So why is Emily listed as being an English-Born American, whilst Boris Johnson, though an American Citizen, and Born in America, can not be listed as a American-Born British Politician? Should it not be the same rule for both (especially considering Boris IS an American). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 24 November 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Please see the top thread above (especially the 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC) comment). Apparently, being born on British soil does not mean one is British.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, so if she's not English, why does the lede keep saying she was English born? She was American-Born (as in, Born as an American). British people who are born in America are not listed as "American-Born British" so why should she be listed as "English-Born American" especially as she has never been, nor ever will be British. See Boris Johnson. He IS American, and yet, wouldn't be listed as "American-Born British." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 25 November 2014‎ (UTC)
 * She was born in England to American expats.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Right Tony, so she's not an English-Born American, she's an American, who happened to be born in England. My question is, why are we differentiating in the Lede, when it's already in the text? Also, She's not English!

Removed text
Per WP:COATRACK; "'Blurred Lines' went on to become the number 1 song of 2013 on music charts in many countries, including Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, and United Kingdom. Although the song placed second on the year-end US Billboard Hot 100 chart, the song's twelve consecutive weeks at number one made it the longest-running number-one single since 'I Gotta Feeling' held the spot for 14 consecutive weeks in 2009." Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I am still reviewing all of your changes and have made some minor corrections. I have just gotten to this section and I disagree for a few reasons. First, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the article and content in the lead must be detailed in the main body. Second, I think it is one thing to say a model was in a video and another to say she was in the number one video in the world.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point @TonyTheTiger:, but the article is about the woman, not the song or the video; it's enough to say "it went to number one in many countries", we don't need to know specific details, which belong in the song's article. Those details can be summarised. That's just my 2d's worth; I'm not bothered and I won't remove it again. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal life
At Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1, suggested that the personal content be removed. WP:SPA, has now restored it twice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace / "British/English-born"
I am just leaving a note here to clarify that according to the Wikipedia manual of style, at WP:OPENPARA and WP:BIRTHPLACE, it is specified that "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". That she was born outside the United States has nothing to do with her notability as a model, actress, sex symbol etc. Attempts to add "British-born" or "English-born" are therefore against MOS in addition to be being simply wrong from a legal standpoint (so far as I can tell from the sources neither she nor either of her parents were British citizens at any time). As an attempt to compromise, as her early life is still undeniably relevant, I have added "Born in London, England and raised primarily in California" to the start of the second sentence. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You do not need to be born of a British parent to become a British citizen. That is simply one of the methods to obtain citizenship you can also obtain it being born in the UK to "settled" parents as the UK home office deems it (see my above explanation of some of the ways that qualify). The point is her parents are american but were they "settled" prior to and after her birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.14.145 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Find sources one way or the other. Speculation is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and has no place here, I'm afraid. I'm sorry to be blunt with you. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  06:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not speculating anything I am telling you the nationality law of the United Kingdom and if she falls under one of the categories then she would be a citizen. I posed a question hence the ? at the end of my sentence. You either didn't read or didn't understand. I'm sorry to be so blunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.14.145 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My point was that confirmation in a reliable source is what would be required to describe her in the article as a British citizen, not some comparison we might make ourselves between the nationality law and her personal history. That would be original research. Even if we find information in reliable sources indicating that she might qualify that does not in itself mean that she actually has claimed and/or received citizenship (that assertion would require its own supporting source). This whole discussion is pretty much moot anyway as a second passport would have no real relevance to Ratajkowski's notability. She would be correctly introduced as "an American model and actress" regardless. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  10:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended conversation (in three threads) and thanks for a good article. I like the text as it now stands: "an American model and actress. Born in London to American parents and raised primarily in California, she rose to prominence after appearing in the music video ..." And I think there could be more pictures. -- AstroU (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Born in London
Just to inform you a person born in UK, doesn't get automatically a British passport. The passport is given only if one of the relative is British therefore she is not british. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.229.238.0 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Born in London doesn't that make her English also? Govvy (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't she be British American if she was born in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.158.184 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but the lede is referring to her vocation, not her nationality. I suppose that she could be considered a British American person, but given that she's been in America since she was 14 - when she signed to Ford - then she is definitely an American model.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. The current phrasing is misleading as the first para suggests she is an America model. Whilst she may well be employed by an American company and live in the USA, the fact remains that she was born in the UK and is actually English. Unless there is evidence to say that she has applied for American citizenship then the article should be rephrased to simply say "is a model". If I moved to Turkey tomorrow and started working there I would not consider myself a Turkish Singer. Jacobsdad (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No she was born in the UK to American parents, which means she was never entitled to British citizenship therefore could not be considered in any sense British. There is also no evidence that she spent any of her childhood in the UK. Therefore she is for all intents and purposes American, and American only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.174.156 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: "British-born American" now appears to be properly sourced in the first sentence of the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * She's not British at all, so thus, can't be considered a British-American person. Born in the UK doesn't grant you citizenship.  She was, and is, an American by birth, and not British, as the UK doesn't have automatic birthright citizenship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding that she is british without any proper form of citation. She was born in Westminster, to american parents, thus has never been eligible for a british passport, never been considered british, etc.  She might think of herself as british, just as the guy down at the bar in Boston might consider himself Irish, but doesn't make it so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok let me educate some people here. I am a dual citizen of the U.S. and UK and if she was born in the UK (which she was) to parents that had indefinite leave to remain (the UK's green card) then she is fully entitled to british citizenship under their nationality law. Look it up. However, if her parents were merely visiting and she happened to be born there then unless she could prove to be stateless which would also qualify here for british citizenship since she was born on their soil then she would simply be a British born american. Now that instantly disqualifies here from ever running for the office of U.S. president but let's face it she likely isn't thinking of that any time ever.

Added link:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.14.145 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, she's perfectly eligible to run for US president. The US constitution requires presidential candidates to be "natural-born" citizens, and the general legal consensus is that this includes those born outside the territory of the United States who acquired US citizenship at birth through their parents (see here, summary and pages 14–19). It is "naturalised" citizens, not those simply born off US soil, that are barred from running (see here, pages 31–32). Secondly, as I tried to say to you below, you're going to have to produce some reliable sources directly relevant to Ratajkowski if you're going to make claims regarding her citizenship. Anything else is speculation and original research. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

First I'd like to say thanks for the link to that research paper it was information. However, the dispute over "natural born" citizen has never been codified by a U.S. Court so all that paper ultimately is would be the "original research" that you so often tell me does not qualify as a reliable source. So with regards to her legal standpoint of running for U.S. President I think (as you put it elsewhere) that point is moot until she announces her candidacy and the court legally rules on the status of "natural born." So while the general consensus (or uncodified opinion what it really is) might argue one perspective we should wait until a legal decision has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.14.145 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused regarding what "original research" and "reliable sources" are in Wikipedia parlance. This paper was prepared for members of the US Congress by a lawyer of the Congressional Research Service, Jack Maskell, to advise them when the so-called "birthers" were challenging President Obama's eligibility. There's quite a succinct summary here. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confused how law is enacted. The U.S. congress have never passed a bill that was signed into law by executive action clearly outlining what is a natural born citizen. Until such a bill is drafted, ratified and signed by the U.S. president then all that paper really amounts to is merely an attorney's interpretation of older foreign codify law that he applied to modern times. I understand you badly want to prove me wrong here but the fact of the matter is the U.S. congress creates laws and no law stipulating exactly what a natural born citizen has been created regardless of how many research papers you may find offering uncodified opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.14.145 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the law—you called the paper inherently unreliable as original research, and I rebutted that as an example of recent consensus and discourse on the matter among lawyers a document emanating from a Congressional think tank is reliable for our purposes. You are correct that the law will remain unclear on this matter until it is actually challenged (perhaps if and when Ted Cruz runs), and that this is why this paper and others even exist. To get back to the point in hand, a claim of British citizenship for Ratajkowski would have to be supported by reliable sources. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  02:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We are in agreement that the legality of natural born has never been specified either by a codified law or a court ruling so the statement that you made saying that she is "perfectly eligible to run" is a matter of speculation that (like you mentioned) may be finally resolved with the status of Cruz. I am in agreement with you that there is no proof that she is a British citizen because the fact of the matter is speaking for myself I never tried to supply evidence of it. What I did supply was several stipulations that she may be eligible for dual citizenship under current british nationality law. Of course it is pure speculation but if her parent did have indefinite leave to remain before and after her birth then she would be eligible for citizenship. However, much like the unsettled "natural born" speculation that you seem to imply was codified by the general consensus of a research group until either of us provide substantial and legally binding evidence. I think we both have to agree that she is certainly only a U.S. citizen based on facts of nationality and that any british citizenship or speculated eligibility for a presidential run are both grossly unverified due to lack of real supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.14.145 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "lack of real supporting evidence"? Do you know of any American citizens who, being citizens at birth, are nonetheless ineligible to run for president? If that's what you are suggesting is so - that there are some persons thus situated, then it's incumbent on you to provide evidence. If not, then you have no business rebuking someone for stating the obvious: All persons who are born into their American citizenship are eligible to run for president. Denying that simple fact is akin to denying that the sun rises in the east. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm glad we've been able to resolve this and I'm sorry if I came off a bit crusty in some of what I wrote. I hope you're well, have a great evening. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"numbers under 10 should be spelt out"
According to MOS, specifically WP:NUMERAL, while it does say "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", it clarifies this later on with "Personal ages are typically stated in figures", therefore it would seem that "The family settled in San Diego when Ratajkowski was five" should indeed be "The family settled in San Diego when Ratajkowski was 5" Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how we do it in professional journalism, but I won't make a big deal out of such a small thing. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Modelling covers mockup

 * I put a reflist in here and am date-stamping this section so that it will eventually get archived. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested copy edit
A copy edit of this article has been requested via the Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page. I will be copy-editing the page over the next day or two. If I make any mistakes, please give me a little time to catch them myself, and then post here. I will post any questions I have if I come across wording that I can't make sense of, and I'll let you know when I am done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have completed copy-editing this article. Here are the changes I made. I removed very little content, only a sentence or phrase here and there. I moved a couple of chunks of text to more appropriate sections.


 * I took care to check some potentially controversial quotations and paraphrases against their sources and rephrased or replaced the text in the article with text that better matched the sources.


 * Let me know if you have any questions. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary of content that we can not yet source
Ratajkowski rose to notability in 2013. Thus, her life before this time is not fully accounted for in WP:RS. Among the things that we could use better sources for are the following items:
 * 1) In 6th grade in late 2002, she starred in an adaptation of The Little Match Girl according to this source. We do not have a reliable source that actually dates this performance although we have a mention of it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) She began dating Andrew Dryden in March 2012 according to this source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Blue dress article draft
I am just letting interested parties know about a draft that I made at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Emily Ratajkowski's blue Koma dress. Based on feedback at WP:FASHION, this is not yet a notable example of Category:Individual dresses yet because its enduring relevance can not yet be determined. I'll be watching to see if this is included in fashion exhibitions and/or museum collections, becomes an enduring Koma creation, notable Ratajkowski dress, whether others wear the dress at important occasions and whether the dress is topical in the press in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Critics "noted" is POV
Why does the article say critics "noted" things? I feel this endorses their POV. See also WP:SAY Siuenti (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have never heard WP:SAY. I am going to need some time to consider the use of note in the article. Are you aware of Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5, which could use some commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have addressed 6 of the 7 instances of noted. I feel the other one is best left alone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think that is an improvement. Siuenti (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Emily Ratajkowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160524083958/http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/emily-ratajkowski-on-sex-success-and-selfies-with-kim-kardashian-a3249511.html to http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/emily-ratajkowski-on-sex-success-and-selfies-with-kim-kardashian-a3249511.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822202018/http://www.complex.com/music/2013/07/blurred-lines-girl-emily-ratajkowski to http://www.complex.com/music/2013/07/blurred-lines-girl-emily-ratajkowski
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630152015/http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/david-fincher-gone-girl-movie-review/ to http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/david-fincher-gone-girl-movie-review/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805105856/http://www.wmagazine.com/people/best-dressed/2015/12/emily-ratajkowski-best-dressed-2015/ to http://www.wmagazine.com/people/best-dressed/2015/12/emily-ratajkowski-best-dressed-2015/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904022015/http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/videos/rita-ora-and-emily-ratajkowski-present-the-award-for-artist-to-watch/1233946/ to http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/videos/rita-ora-and-emily-ratajkowski-present-the-award-for-artist-to-watch/1233946/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313011809/http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/27/emily-ratajkowskis-hottest-instagram-pictures-slideshow/ to http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/27/emily-ratajkowskis-hottest-instagram-pictures-slideshow/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is she not listed as models of Catholic descent?
I sense some Wiki bigotry as every other aspect of her is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4101:4167:40AE:1F73:64E6:AD1 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this was an attempt at some kind of sarcasm. If not, one very good reason is that there is no Category:Models of Catholic descent. Nor does the creation of one seem appropriate, since the religious "descent" (whatever that is) of a model is not a defining characteristic.  General Ization   Talk   01:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal life
The start of this section, dealing with relationships, looks like the sort of thing that would be front page on one of those gossip mags I see in checkouts. Is it of vital encyclopedic importance we include this information? The sources don't look to be particularly great and skirt far too close to WP:BLPSOURCES for my liking. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , You are not being very direct. That is a four paragraph section. I am going to assume that you are opposing only the first paragraph which is about her relationships since that is what the edit history suggests you are really having problems with. I find it quite unusual to remove relationship content from a personal life section. That is one of the first things a reader would probably look to find in such a section. As she becomes more prominent, her relationships will appear in more reliable/prominent sources. However, you can see that we have tried to draw the line on relationships in the section above "Summary of content that we can not yet source", where we know of a longterm relationship that we are unable to adequately source. Surely there are some celebrities that have had a few marriages and one might eliminate non-marriages from the encyclopedic content, but in this case there is no such other perspective to diminish long term dating relationships. Many other celebrities include significant non-marriage relationships.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ritchie333, we're at 113k here. Did you ever read WP:FART? got it going. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , since when do we count length based on the code. The article is under 25k in readable prose, which is not considered long by any stretch. However, keep up the good work on minimizing my excess coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony I measure size in any way I can. I consider this article to be ridiculously long. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both measures exist, but Article size seems to focus on readable prose with 30-50KB of readable prose seeming to be a normal length for a broad topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have every possible fact of her life in there. And we're still talking about someone who was in a music video, and had a few bit parts. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Ratajkowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170324124445/http://chicagoist.com/2016/09/26/joe_swanbergs_easy_offers_more_than.php to http://chicagoist.com/2016/09/26/joe_swanbergs_easy_offers_more_than.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Ratajkowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.republic-online.com/lifestyles/entertainment/emily-ratajkowski-wants-strong-roles/article_785b9450-1e69-5260-b4d2-d72d7b41e9bb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831040511/http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/moviemom/2015/08/we-are-your-friends.html to http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/moviemom/2015/08/we-are-your-friends.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Her claim to being a feminist has been both supported and disputed."
This sentence in the lede is confusingly worded. It sounds like it's either stating that there is disagreement on whether or not she claims to be a feminist; or that she claims to be a feminist, but there is contention over whether she is actually a feminist. Either way it seems like a strange thing to put in a lede, so if there's no disagreement I'm going to remove it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD summarizes the main body. The main body says that some people describe her as a feminist and some people describe her as the opposite. I think something like this should be in the LEAD, but am open to rephrasing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a strange sentence, so I've tried re-phrasing. The main body may also need some edits to better reflect the specific claims of the relevant source articles. My interpretation is (1) she self-identifies as a feminist and (2) there is both support and criticism over her views on sexual expression (and acts of sexual expression). --Minding (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 minutes with Emily Ratajkowski (2).jpg

Nationality doesn't make sense. Should be English, no?
If Emily was born in England and spent the first 5yrs of her life there then that makes her English, surely? She would have British on her birth certificate. Because as it stands, claiming she is American because she has American parents, then by that logic, Australian actor Hugh Jackman is actually English. Because even though Hugh Jackman was born in Australia, both of his parents are actually English. So, which is right and which is wrong? If Emily's page stays saying that her nationality is American, then Hugh Jackman's nationality on his page has to be changed to English, no? --Sausage Caserole (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to modern British nationality law she is NOT English. Trillfendi (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, nationality would be British-American, but for some reason it's not written that way, also, she has entitlement to be British by birth, but it doesn't mean she has actually claimed it or not, where is the evidence? Govvy (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The nationality wouldn’t even be British-American. Being born in the United Kingdom does not entitle you British citizenship unless your parents are already British. Her parents are American. Trillfendi (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You say "modern" British law. When she was born the law was different. Her parents lived and worked in England, so she would be British by birth. British-American makes more sense. She wouldn't have to give evidence, would she? It would just be fact and she would have British on her birth certificate. She would also have dual citizenship for the UK and US. --Sausage Caserole (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Modern British nationality law began on January 1, 1983... she was born in 1991. Do the math. Trillfendi (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone born in the UK to parents not of the nation can apply for citizenship. The crown can either grant citizenship or not. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi. No need to get hostile. I'm just trying to learn how Wikipedia works and understand. As what i have learnt so far is what is ok for one page isn't ok for another and vice versa. And editors often flag wave and lock pages out of biased patriotism and such. Anyway, just because she was born after the law change doesn't mean she didn't apply and wasn't granted citizenship. Could ask he on social media i suppose.--Sausage Caserole (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t hostility, it was simply saying she was born 8 years after the fact. On top of the fact. The only time she’s ever associated with presumed British-ness is when people assume she is British based on her name. For us to assume without any evidence that she ever formally applied for British citizenship is original research. If she did, it would certainly be public given how her every move is tracked these days. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Her mother is Jewish and therefore so is she. As such, she cannot be English, she is British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.114.111 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Jewish people can be English. 212.219.94.138 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Should every photo shoot warrant an entry?
Cleaning up the list of photo shoots to include only major ones is needed.

They read like a day by day diary of near identical events better left outside of and not in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:1CD4:BCBF:B453:BDF6 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)