Jump to content

Talk:Plus-size model/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"African descent"?

If a model's race must be stipulated (although I don't see why it should be, since black plus-size models do very well in the industry, and are not particularly seen less often than Caucasian plus-size models), wouldn't it be better to say that a model is "black" rather than "of African descent"? A good faith suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.23.237 (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It is relevant to denote her race in terms of the cosmetics work with Cover Girl; I strongly disagree that black models are 'not particularly seen less often than caucasian models' in this style of model work or any other, especially in an international context. Although they may do 'as well' relatively, the amount of work is markedly less than that for caucasian models outside of the U.S. Tesfay was born in Canada of Eritrean descent so the common descriptor "African American" is erroneous. To make it simple, 'black' it is. 3RingCircus (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to look on Wiki for the answer to this, so I'll ask here: when does a web link become web spam? When the link breaks, or merely when someone notices that links have been added to an article? For an article needing to find more sources, recent removals of all weblinks seems a bit overzealous to me. AntiVanity (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CALENDARS

The whole calendar paragraph is problematic now, I think; too big for the article relative to its significance. It's not possible to rank these along with ANTM, print magazines, etc., any more than online magazines, because they don't have anything like the same kind of public reach, and the naming of specific calendars in the first place invites spam. Since 2007, the year of the named calendars, is (nearly) over, and they haven't become annual publications, I think the paragraph should be cut back to refer to the launch of several calendars in general, without naming specifics, otherwise there's the impossible requirement of defining exactly what is or is not a notable calendar. Also, the sentence about fostering a healthier industry attitude is too generic and applies to many projects involving plus-size models, not just these calendars. You'd need to repeat the same sentence in nearly every item in the article if it appears here. I recommend something like, "2007 was the launch year for several grassroots calendar projects featuring women over a U.S. size 12, spurring similar projects in the following year." Perhaps to be named, a calendar would have to merit its own Wiki entry, and undergo an AfD discussion. Neckapply (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not understand why you are trying to compare TV shows with consumer products and it is disingenuous of you to want to. MODE no longer exists, should that be expunged from the article too? I agree to a certain point about modifying the mention of calendars, however there are good media references available for the Fenomenal Calendar and this article sorely needs every good source link it can get. The originators of a market niche are worth noting IMO; the rest are just jumping on the bandwagon (in terms of seeking self-promotion, not in production quality or financial returns) and certainly none of them yet are at the aesthetic level of Fenomenal, no matter what opinion one may hold on the theme of the styling, size of the models, or comparisons between unrelated other print products, such as MODE Magazine for example. Further, I do not believe it necessary for a single mention to undergo AfD or else every model named to their own paragraph on this article should do the same. I would think that a Fenomenal weblink is appropriate because the homepage remains visible online. This calendar does set the standard for commercially-available calendar products; in the absence of Elena Miro's calendar remaining online for people to see, which in any case was never available for purchase and should only be considered a promotional item - anything other in comparison is apples and turnips.
  • Suggestion: "2007 was the launch year for several [link=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homegrown homegrown] calendar projects featuring women over a U.S. size 12, including the well-received (media reflink) Fenomenal Calendar (weblink). These calendars have opened up a new market for the models to be seen outside of clothing advertising-only contexts, and also enabled them to capture the interest of people outside of the usual plus-size clothing consumer demographic.
  • Disingenuous? Assume good faith. It's a measure of public impact. Anyway, I think the original suggestion might have been stronger "2007 was the launch year for several grassroots calendar projects featuring women over a U.S. size 12, including the well-received (media reflink) Fenomenal Calendar, which have spurred the creation of more for the following year" because it's more succinct, but both versions are improvements. "Well-received" or "-promoted"? Consider though that while the intention may have been to "open up a new market," it's debatable whether this has been accomplished -- yet. Perhaps "attempted to open" not "opened"? The other calendars seem to be "homegrown" as you say, produced within the plus community, and it would be successful in opening up a new market if established calendar-makers were now approaching plus-size models to appear in calendars. At any rate, the tighter wordings are good. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION PAGE EDIT

This page is becoming too long and unwieldy, and it is very difficult to clearly show ongoing discussion and/or determination of article 'policy' and process. I propose that the following item numbers be removed as redundant or no longer relevant:

  • 2 - Removal of Happy Size debate as irrelevant and sidetracked. (My fault)
  • 4 - "The rest of the world" - debate on sizes has been handled in (2). Perhaps move argument to plus-size clothing article as is relevant to that now?
  • 5 - as above - size debate not required by article
  • 9, 9.1 and 9.2 - removal as unncessary 3RingCircus (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do any one have any feed back to what the requirements to how to be a plus size model.--Scorpionprince (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, the article accurately described them BEFORE your edits. I don't know whether it was inexperience with Wiki editing or a simple lack of courtesy, but may I suggest you discuss your proposed edits on this board BEFORE going ahead with them, as they were not in keeping with either the needs of the article or the general tone and content of the Wiki overall. 3RingCircus (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

E-zines

Strongly agree with eliminating the reference to Skorch. Apart from the fact that enties like this tend to be self-serving promotional blurbs with wildly exaggerated claims, the circulation of e-zines is minimal, and the quality extremely substandard. Unless a magazine goes into print and achieves something like national circulation (a la Mode, Grace, and Figure), it doesn't merit an encycopedia reference. Neckapply 08:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Absolutely. Unless the 'publication' is widely known to the public (not just plus-size clothing consumers), has over 80% original content (not just regurgitated from elsewhere on the web via "contributing editors"),and is subject to circulation audit, it does not have a place in this article. At best, if a 'publication' is growing in esteem and quality then it should attempt its own Wiki article with crossrefs back here. That is the appropriate process, as an AfD discussion would be the avenue where merit and notability are assessed properly. It may be convenient to deluge this article with related topics of information, but plus-size model is a 'definition' article, and shoudl remain as such. AntiVanity 23:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Difference/Gap between Plus-Size MODEL sizes and Plus-Size CLOTHING sizes

Judging from the number of people still altering the start point of clothing sizes for plus-size model in this article, some notation needed to be added to explain why there are models at size 8 being called plus-size when the clothing is marketed at around a 14-16 as being plus size. I have attempted to do this in the article as a reference, and I hope it is sufficient to satisfy readers. In a perfect world the models would just be called models, and plus-size attached solely to the clothing because that is the best way of ending the confusion and debate, but it is not within my ability to effect that level of change LOL. Comments on reference wording? AntiVanity 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It might be helpful to avoid fixing a model-size start point altogether, since this is indeed a contentious issue, and the subject of intense frustration on the part of the public (debates about this raging on practically every size-related forum that exists, or has ever existed), and to simply state the plus-size clothing size numbers alone. If necessary, just note the fact that the model-size start point is a contentious issue, which it is. But the clothing sizes alone, which have less fluidity, should suffice. Neckapply 05:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • At any rate, size 8 cannot be used as the dividing line between straight and plus. Agencies, even NY agencies, feature MANY models size 8 (and even a few 10s) who are NOT listed in the plus-size divisions, but in other boards, like commercial/lifestyle, "Ford II", etc. In fact, and here's the crux of the matter, there are more 8s outside of the plus-size category than inside the plus-size category. For example, Christie Brinkley is listed as an 8 at Ford, and she is not a plus-size model. Again, it indicates how problematic it is to arbitrarily draw a lower-end dividing line for plus-size models. And a higher-end dividing line is even less concrete. Better to get rid of this. The clothing measurements have less flux. Neckapply 05:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I agree that not all agencies are promoting their larger models as plus-size, however I view that as an individually-based marketing decision, not an if-your-size-is-this-then-you-are-plus-size *correctness* policy being disregarded. I daresay the example of Carre Otis being called plus-size when she was an 8 sent shudders through many as the stigma is still so strong against larger sizes, so frankly I wouldn't expect to see Christie Brinkley or Lauren Hutton or whomever being repped as such. Okay, so current wording is: Plus-size model is a neologism internationally applied to a woman larger than a standard U.S. size 8 who is engaged primarily in modeling clothing for consumers wearing a dress size 14 or higher in North American sizing, 12 or higher in Australian sizing, size 40 or higher in Europe, and 16 or higher in UK sizing, although the start point for these sizes is subject to continued debate. So how about this instead, so we can leave it up to the Wiki article on plus-size clothing to define the international size comparisons, etc insteading muddying up the model entry?: Plus-size model is a neologism internationally applied to a woman who is engaged primarily in modeling garments that are designed and marketed specifically for larger body sizes and types< ref >See plus-size clothing< /ref >.AntiVanity 22:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Am importing this text into the opening of the article. 209.247.5.170 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that should do the trick, except that the term has been around for quite some time, so I don't think it can be called a "neologism" anymore. Otherwise, that phrasing should finally settle the matter -- thankfully so. It also avoids the other contentious issue, of which countries' sizings need to be listed. Neckapply 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: your comments on synonyms; what is used by clients in communication with models and what is used openly in media about them seem to be rather different things. The most transparent terms should remain, however I do not agree with removing 'happy size' without a discussion, nor 'extended size', which was quite commonly used. In discussions such as these, anonymity of editors hampers clarification, it ends up a guesing game of 'who's more right than the other person'. AntiVanity 21:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Extended size' I can see, and if you feel that it is widespread enough to warrant a mention, so be it (I didn't delete it). Same with 'oversize', although that is rare and growing rarer. But Happy Size really is just a company name, and a "Happy Size model" would only be used in reference to models for that particular company. For example, an Ulla Popken model would never be termed a "Happy Size model", for obvious reasons. It has not entered public discourse in the same way that, say, the brand name Xerox is interchangeable with photocopy, or Kleenex with tissue. Neckapply 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This has been a discussion elsewhere. "Happy size" is not dissimilar to the usage of 'curvy', and is still not only a brand name. But I suppose the German models who told me that it was synonymous were wrong? As for whether plus-size is no longer a neologism, Usage Notes from the Wikitionary reason: For a word to no longer be considered new, it needs to be understood by a significant portion of the population, as having always been a valid word. For that to occur, the word must have been in common use for approximately one generation; fifteen to twenty years. No exact measure of how long a word needs to be part of the language to no longer be considered "new" is universally accepted. So I guess you're right, if we are only talking about North American populations. AntiVanity 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A Google search for the phrase "happy size model" with "search in all languages" settings, turns up only 18 hits, all capitalized "Happy Size model" and every single one of those is directly related to being a model for the Happy Size company (most concerning a model search being organized by said company). I'm afraid I see no evidence for this phrase being used in any context other than being a model for that specific company. Besides, since we're talking about a German context, this should be better left to an equivalent German-language article in wikipedia.de, where German editors can vet the material, while the English wikipedia article should stick to terms in English-speaking countries. Otherwise, one opens the same can of worms that plagued the internationl sizing matter -- how many countries to include, where to draw the line? Neckapply 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Individual Model listings to this Article

  • Please respect the fact that this page serves to describe the business of plus-size modeling. It is not the place for the creation of biographical listings for individual models. If you wish to create a listing for an individual, please do so as per the Wiki guidelines as an indiviual entry under the model's name, but be aware that you will need to provide a high level of references and relevant and notable Google matches for such an individual to pass scrutiny on merit and notability. AntiVanity 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

TO MODELS SEEKING TO ENTER THEIR NAME TO THIS ARTICLE:

Kaycee Stroh

Firstly, this actress is not an agency-represented model; as to her merit in being included she had very short-lived exposure via Torrid and does not presently appear on the site. Until such time as she gets campaign work she should not be entered to this article, lest it signal to the masses that "one job maketh a model". 3RingCircus (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jordin Sparks

As this woman has presently ceased working as a plus size model and does not currently have model agency representation, I have removed her paragraph until such time as it merits reinsertion. 3RingCircus (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Jordin Sparks ~ is the season six, 2007 winner of American Idol. Sparks began modeling after she won a Torrid stores model search in Phoenix, Arizona. Due to her exclusive contract with AI and full schedule her modeling career is currently on hiatus.

Whitney Thompson

Whitney's entry is starting to draw "correction trolls" who make changes without substantiating or crediting resources. As the official website for ANTM did not list measurements, weight or height for Cycle 10 it is virtually impossible to verify her dress size. An article which appeared in her hometown's paper announcing her win lists her dress size as 8 (http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/2008/05/14/atlantic-beach-woman-is-tvs-top-model/) and as she has been on the cover of the thing 4 times, and in their fashion layouts you'd think they would have/be able to easily get the correct information, if noone else. Can we please discuss information here before making edits? Thanks. AntiVanity (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whitney herself has stated, on national television, that her size is a size 10. Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCFj01eFdd4 as well as read this interview: http://www.realitywanted.com/newsitem/1126-interview-with-whitney-thompson-winner-of-americas-next-top-model-cycle-10 Corrections based on statements coming out of the model's own mouth are not "trolling", and it does not show good faith to call them such. The linked Fox interview is from May 19th, 2008, making it the most recent size reference. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Let's not argue off topic, eh? As Thompson is now publically being marketed by Elite, we should be bound by Elite's statistics because they are actual bonfide measurements of her body, and are not relative to the non-standardized sizing of the apparel industry (excepting the standard size 8 (36-24-36)). It is important to make the distinction between her body size and clothing size as Thompson's quotes can be misinterpreted: In Seventeen magazine she is bylined as saying she "looks good in a size 14" when clearly her body is not actually a size 14 by measurement - she is commenting that size 14 was the size in that particular (designer, Italian) swimsuit that fit her best. The Wiki uses agency stats for other models, anything else seems like original research. AntiVanity (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sage Salzer

PLEASE NOTE ABOVE COMMENT Have removed entry citing blatent self promotion, as it was in no way neutral or objective as per encyclopaedic content. Description of 'international supermodel' status particularly gratuitous as is exclamation punctuation. Considering that Salzer has been recently replaced on the Slimfast campaign, and that such a campaign is the antithesis of all that a plus model *should* stand for, I would not advocate this to be evidence of notability, only of work completed. Salzer has not achieved the same level of recognition ouside of the plus industry compared to other models attached to this entry, however if Salzer passed a Wiki AfD on merit as an individual entry then it could be cross linked back to this entry where appropriate. Again, this is a definition article, it is not a forum where all models who have ever worked should be identified. AntiVanity (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katya_Zharkova Katya Zharkova (born October 30, 1981) is a Russian plus-size model currently based in the United States. She has modelled for labels such as Forever 21, Silver Jeans, Elena Miro, vanity Fair Lingerie,Macys.com Kohls, Bon Ton, Target, Cabi, and plus-size specialists Fashion To Figure.[2] She is best known for her pictorial by photographer Victoria Janashvili in the January 2012 issue of PLUS Model Magazine, which highlighted the disparities between what it claims are ordinary women and runway models. She was a model for Russian version COSMOPOLITAN and ELLE Magazine in 2006. And also she was a first plus size model who worked on Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Russia Take a look please spread was INTERNATIONAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.28.109 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Katya Zharkova

This entry should be removed from "Notable Models, Other Regions". We only know about her because someone keeps attaching her to this article, not because her fame has spread internationally as per the other models cited. There is no proof of notability; only a claim to actually working as a model, which is insufficient. Furthermore, she appears now to be more a TV presenter rather than a model. AntiVanity 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katya_Zharkova Katya Zharkova (born October 30, 1981) is a Russian plus-size model currently based in the United States. She has modelled for labels such as Forever 21, Silver Jeans, Elena Miro, vanity Fair Lingerie,Macys.com Kohls, Bon Ton, Target, Cabi, and plus-size specialists Fashion To Figure.[2] She is best known for her pictorial by photographer Victoria Janashvili in the January 2012 issue of PLUS Model Magazine, which highlighted the disparities between what it claims are ordinary women and runway models. She was a model for Russian version COSMOPOLITAN and ELLE Magazine in 2006. And also she was a first plus size model who worked on Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Russia Take a look please spread was INTERNATIONAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.28.109 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Velvet D'Amour

  • An individual article on D'Amour is currently being discussed by Wiki admins after an A7 deletion and will not come up on a Wiki search. If you wish to contribute information on D'Amour, please leave it under this heading in plain sight, available for interested editors, until the article has been restored. AntiVanity 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chenese Lewis

Have removed entry as Lewis has very little public recognition outside of the model community. While some of her accomplishments bear merit, her own article is not written to objective standards and needs greater references and source provision from media sites rather than 'friends and family' Have moved her entry here until such time as it merits reinsertion (with editing) 3RingCircus (talk)

  • Chenese Lewis, ~ appeared on season 1 of BET's hit show Hell Date as well as the first woman crowned Miss Plus America in 2003. She has modeled for popular plus size clothing company Torrid as well as the current celebrity spokesperson for Sizeappeal.com. She is also a plus size advocate and currently hosts PLUS Model Radio, where she interviews the Who's Who of the plus community. (This paragraph was placed here by 3RingCircus (talk) until such time as it merits reinsertion)

ANTM Contestants

Anna Bradfield, cycle 2, was signed on to be the show's plus size model, but left in the first episode because she refused to do the nude photo shoot as Eve. Even though she didn't stay on the show very long, her name should remain attached to the ANTM mention.AntiVanity 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Hartshorne, cycle 9, has been cited by both Tyra Banks and herself in national media as being the show's "plus size model". E! interview, via YouTube Therefore, her name should be kept attached to the ANTM mention. AntiVanity 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Queen Latifah?

Just wondering, should Queen Latifah be added to this page? Mayukhers112 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

She is not a fashion model, but a celeb spokesperson. She is not signed with an agency as a model. Lil Flip246 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why would this web-site print a such hateful comment :Clearly, that person is very unhappy and should try and get some medical help .
Uh, are you talking about me, lol? I didn't mean my comment to be offensive at all, and I don't really know how it is anyway...Queen Latifah has a beautiful body! Mayukhers112 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the world

"A plus-size model is a female fashion model who wears a dress size 14 or higher (in North American sizing)."

I'd be inclined to believe that the term isn't exclusive to North America. And that it isn't universally defined across all parts of the world where the term is in use. (Moreover, what are you people claiming is the equivalent term for men?)

There are most certainly other ways in which the article ought to be improved to be more geographically neutral. -- Smjg 01:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • True, the term is definitely not exclusive to North America, but we have to measure it somehow. Someone needs to look up the equivalent of a size 14 in various cultures, and put it on there.

As for the MALE equivalent, I think that's hard to define. Plus size female models are beautiful full-figured women who are in good shape even though they don't have small measurements (anyone who is seriously overweight isn't typically a fashion model.

Apply this description to a man: "a beautiful full-figured man who is in good shape..." Well that sounds like a big muscle man, who is basically a typical male model. Basically what I'm saying is that mainstream media tell us that girls should be slim, so that's what the majority of female fashion models are, but they tell us that men should be big (muscle, not fat), so that's what most male fashion models are. The equivalent, therefore, of a plus-size model in the male fashion world would be a skinny guy (I hope that makes sense). However, society seems to be much more accepting of men of different sizes than they are of different sized women for whatever reason, so I think male models vary in size more than female.

I made that more complicated than I meant to. Basically, a plus-size female model might be 5'10 and weigh 170 pounds, but those same numbers on a guy makes him just a regular male model.Rgrizza 02:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As an English-language term, "plus-size model" IS primarily situated in a North American context. Other countries have equivalent terms in their own individual languages, and therefore equivalent entires (with equivalent sizes) can be made in the different language sections of Wikipedia. The British have never adopted the term exclusively. They still use a variety of terms, including "outsize model," therefore, "plus-size model" should retain its North American context. It would also encumber the article greatly to list all of the different sizes in all of the different countries. Those, as stated earlier, can be listed in the separate language sections of Wikipedia (e.g., the German size in an equivalent entry in wikipedia.de, using the equivalent German phrase for this type of model). KameraObscura 05:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)KameraObscura

I'm quite sure I've seen the term used in British media, but I forget where. Besides, A Google search for "plus-size" gives a fair number of UK hits on the first page of results, and even UK sites mentioning "plus-size model" aren't that rare. I'm not sure what the definition is over here, but guess it starts somewhere around size 16 (which I think is about the same as an American 14). Maybe it starts at 18. I'm not sure. Maybe it isn't so clearly defined. "Outsize" isn't a term I've any real experience of, though I've heard that OUAT it was common over here as a size between L and XL in the S/M/L 'system'.
And even if the term "plus-size" were restricted to a small area of the world, that would be irrelevant. It goes without saying that, on such basis, the article should at least mention something about terms with similar meaning in other English-speaking countries. -- Smjg 23:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added the equivalent Australian and British numbers. (Australian sizing is a tad smaller than North American sizing, but plus-size modelling begins at a smaller size there, so the equivalent 14 is valid.) Will this do? I still think that it's more appropriate to enter the French, German, Italian etc. sizes in corresponding-language entries in the different linguistic versions of Wikipedia. KameraObscura 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)KameraObscura

It's a little better now. But the way it's phrased as I write, I can see people being tempted to think that American size 14 and Australian size 14 are the same thing. I'm just trying to think how it can be written better.... -- Smjg 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article can only get so involved in sizing particulars, because even those might ultimately vary (from one designer to the next, for example), which is a whole separate tangent. I think we have to make some generalizations. But I differentiated U.S. from Australia. Anything else? KameraObscura 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus size models starting at size 10 in UK/Autralia sizing?? Size 10 equates to about a US size 6!! The size of a standard model is 8-10; US 14 would be about a 16 or 18 and in my experience (Australia and New Zealand media) plus size models are Australian size 14 or 16, not size 10!

  • (plese sign comments using four tildes ~) Size conversion is not as easy a matter to qualify, as already discussed. I personally am a UK16, AUS16 and a US14 in standard items, not specificly 'plus size' garments. I have found this conversion to hold true over a majority of designers. There are no international standard measurements for regular or plus-size 14/16/18 which is why providing a size conversion has been problematic. The most relevant (IMO) size conversion chart I have seen is that which is shown on the labels of clothing from H&M. Further, there are women represented by major agencies as plus-size models from as low as a US8, and there are a number of models represented as 'plus-size' in Australia at an AU10/UK10/US8. Again, what the industry is, and what the public think it ought to be, are two very different things. The fashion industry strives to make smaller sizes 'aspirational' in their advertising even in this sector, with only a few exceptions. AntiVanity 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note regarding size references in article

  • Models over a US standard size 8 (36"-24"-36") are termed by the international fashion community to be plus-sized. This is a fact created by repeated usage and supported by viewing current plus-size model sizes via top US and international agency websites, whether it meets with Wiki editor approval or not. Please do not persist in removing or altering this information. AntiVanity 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Plokker: (responding to edit history note dated 26Jun07) Appreciate your trying to find clarity with model sizes in this article. Not sure we're quite there yet. Is the sticking point the use of "above a size 8" when you think it should be "size 10 and higher"? As the inch measurements for a standard U.S. size 8 are given in the first paragraph, then I see no issue with using the phrase 'above a U.S. size 8' because it assists complete understanding in non-U.S. readers. As a model is determined to be in the 'plus-size' category on the basis of being bigger than those measurements, I feel that the phrasing 'above U.S. size 8' is the most correct; although 'U.S. size 10 and higher' is also true, it has not been quantified to the same degree. AntiVanity 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"U.S. size 10 and higher" is definitely the clearer phrasing, but apart from that, there's a real problem with the size listings in this article. A look through three British agencies with plus-size models (12plusUK Hughes Excel) shows a majority of size 14's and 16's and a few 18's. Very few 12's at all. One of the three agencies doesn't have ANY 12's. It is misleading to list only the lowest extreme size of plus-size model. Those appear to be exceptional cases, not the norm. Yet by listing those lower extremely specifically, they give off the appearance of being some kind of standard. It would be better to state an average size of plus-size model, something like U.S. size 14, British 16, and whatever the Australian equivalent is. Neckapply 22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It is not misleading to list or focus on the lower sizings of the industry over the higher because it is the only point where they remain constant, and it is highly relevant to clarify the tipping point from 'regular' to plus-size modeling. As for an average: models come and go, they lose and gain weight, and the clients change their minds from season to season what size they prefer to show in advertising. The average will constantly change, therefore there is no real use in putting it here because people will have the expectation that's how it should be, and when it changes they'll just come back here saying the article was wrong.

Besides, the only way to qualify the 'average' plus size model to the standards of the Wiki is by going to every agency website in the world and doing the math, then doing it again every week as it evolves. Right now it could be said that the majority of agencies have an upper limit of U.S. size 16, the equivalent of UK18, Australian 18, and European 46 for their models; if you would like to focus on that number then that may be more appropriate, however there will always be exceptions to the rule, as there is with height requirements. Your point about there being no size 12s in one UK agency is neither here nor there. Next week they may have 3. And did you look at the german agency sites for plus? They are full of 10s and 12s. AntiVanity 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Nevertheless, I am adamant about the first point, that "U.S. size 10 and higher" is the clearer phrasing, and less likely to cause confusion. Neckapply 20:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As there is currently one size 8 model (Hannah) showing on the Wilhelmina NY site, and 2 on the Ford NY site (Claudia/Danielle), the phrases "above a U.S. size 8 / U.S. size 8 and above" are the most correct and are now clearly qualified as such. These agencies are the industry leaders, so their example serves as the benchmark. It's only 3 out of hundreds at 12-14-16, so it's hardly the beginning of a trend but the starting point for plus is clearly U.S. size 8. AntiVanity 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As for agencies on other countries, it seemed a wise decision some time ago to restrict this English-language article to the parameters of agencies in predominantly English-speaking countries (hence the opening mention of sizes in the U.S., U.K., and Australia), or the article would become unwieldy in its need to list every country and every different equivalent size, since corresponding articles in other languages would cover the size parameters in other nations. Neckapply 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

    • I would have thought that using only one country's size chart would be the most preferable - and I vote for the U.S.' as it is most relevant to the article by dint of model population and industry. It is a simple matter for readers to find a comparison chart elsewhere on the internet. This is about the business of being a plus-size model, definition by size need only extend so far. AntiVanity 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let someone who knows this stuff *inside out* guide you...

On topic: plus size models are deemed, by the agencies representing them, to be any model that does not meet the standard sizing of regular models. Plus models will tell you that the label given them is global, as business is now international and Plus Size model is the generally accepted term. People who use other terms are guilty only of being overly PC or sensitive to sizist criticism, however in usual business the term Plus Size Model is quite acceptable and preferable above all others.

Plus size models are generally, in the US, UK and Australia (regardless of equivalent sizing) models who measure above the standard regular model bust-waist-hips measurements of 36-24-36. Therefore, you will often find models at a US size 8 or 10 being marketed as plus size. Popular opinion is greatly divided on the topic; many feel that the existing population of models does not represent the consumer at a size 8 and therefore will say that plus-size models *should* start at size 14, however within the actual business of modeling this is not the case. It should be decided by the editing overlords how to proceed with this page. There is a fair whiff of vanity attached to mentioning any particular model within the description of what a plus model is; any model should be named separately outside of the intial introduction, and perhaps only those with existing Wiki pages or solid external links left undeleted.

As for a table or other diagram showing equivalent dress sizing; this is problematic and not necessary within the description of what a plus model is or does. I will edit the paragraph to show a more accurate description of a plus size model and let you decide how to edit. BGModels 08:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


The discussion page exists to discuss alterations to the entry. As noone is disputing that the models are smaller than the consumers of plus clothing, why is the opening line being reverted to the less factual previous edit? BGModels 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Male equivalent

To date, there is no existing male equivalent internationally in the modeling industry for plus size clothing. Do not concern yourself with the issue at this point. I am 100% that when it happens, men will be given a different label, such as 'Big and Tall', as is currently the usual description of the relevant larger clothing they advertise. - BGModels 09:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Why does plus modeling exist?

It is widely acknowledged, if not entirely accepted, that the population of the world is becoming larger in terms of body dimensions. The business of modeling plus size clothing exists to sell larger size clothing, period. It did not arise because of an alleged revival of classical values; that perspective is purely subjective and I believe KameraObscura knows this, evidenced by the removal of my mention of the JudgmentofParis website from my entry, "Let someone who knows this business guide you". KameraObscura: If you wish to edit discussions, please restrict yourself to editing your own.

For the sake of correctness and impartiality, I suggest an edit to state something along the lines of "Plus-size models are often shown in advertising images in contexts that reflect the voluptuous Classical ideal of feminine beauty, as defined by sculptures such as the Venus de' Medici and the Winged Victory of Samothrace--i.e., the aesthetic ideal that generally prevailed throughout Western history, until well into the twentieth century." This is more factual and less subjective than as it stands now. - BGModels 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note - my understanding of the matter was that thinness became the fashionable ideal around the time of the French Revolution - corsets were worn to make women appear skinnier. My grandmother told me about how an ideal in the early 20th century was that a man should be able to put both his hands all the way around a woman's waist. However, the standard of thin being fashionable has become much more extreme over time (one possible cause for increased incidence of anorexia). Userafw (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The curvy ideal lasted long after the French Revolution, and even trendsetter Marie Antoinette was not thin (until her imprisonment). Corsets re-emerged from time to time, but they only served to accentate full hips and busts. But the early 20th century, yes -- around the time of the flappers and the suffrage movement -- that's when thinness began to dominate as a "modern" standard. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a point to this discussion resuming? The article is on plus size models and the business of plus size modeling; talking about population shifts in size consciousness is off topic and problematic (understatement) AntiVanity (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No; only responding to Userafw. Am happy to drop it. Not to quibble, though, but when senior Wikipedia editor Yandman culled the old form of this article, expunging various external links, he noted that it pertains to "the concept of plus-size modelling" not to "the business of plus-size modelling" (which is why e.g. agency links and sites about becoming a plus-size model were cut) 24.215.23.237 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Which 'it' do you refer to (..it pertains..)? And why should the 'concept', which provides no real qualifiable content, deserve prominence over the 'business', which has supplied the most resources to this article? AntiVanity (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing of models

As the Wiki is against vanity and meritless entries, and approximately half of the names listed have no supporting Wiki pages, the listing should be deleted. Any person visiting the resource websites given will be able to access the information via directories and forums and these resource listings are more likely to be updated and keep live than Wiki entries; to whit, the Wiki page for Emme is in dire need of update, yet she is the one person that has the most merit to be attached to this entry. - BGModels 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Have noted that the listing of agencies has been culled by Yandman as not pertaining to concept of plus-size models, however could argue that listing of models allows for vanity listings and does not pertain to concept directly either. Can someone who knows how please devise a contents table to allow listings of models (and shortfrom bios, maybe?) to be attached to this page so they aren't tempted to list as separate Wiki entries?? BGModels 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some existing separate entries should remain, however, especially if individuals have separate credits that precede, or are in a addition to, plus-size modelling. 24.215.36.168 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Christina Schmidt?

One cable TV show does not a celebrity make. Can anyone suggest another example of a celebrity that worldwide readers may actually recognise? BGModels 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Degrassi is seen in many countries around the world. Wikipedia lists several, but I know that there are more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation#Broadcast_history

Christina in unique in having this credit, and being signed as a professional plus-size model with Wilhelmina, one of the top two New York agencies for plus-size models. This better warrants a mention in an article about plus-size models than a celebrity who is not officially signed to the plus-size division of a major agency. 24.215.36.168 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Debate whether an entry about celebrities under 'related information' is necessary to plus-size modeling then, instead of who is appropriate. 'Size acceptance' is a different topic to 'plus-size model', however the growth of the business of plus-size modeling depends on increasing size-acceptance in society. Latifah is more widely notable in this regard than Schmidt, even if Schmidt's fledgling resume impresses some people more than Latifah's extensive and Oscar-nominated filmographic credits (as per IMDB.com) and constant international press coverage. Latifah, by virtue of being a plus-sized woman appearing in a typical model context (a cosmetics advertising campaign) historically not open to plus-size models must reasonably be deemed to have appeared both as a model and to have greatly furthered the opportunities for plus-size models, celebrity status notwithstanding. Upon viewing the noted Degrassi Wikipage, Schmidt has 2 bare mentions; one under listings for past cast members, and the other about her character's on-off appearances. Nothing about the character she portrayed rates a mention.
  • Besides which, the entry as it stands makes no claim to Latifah being a plus-size model; perhaps some editing is required to move the entry to a more appropriate place in the page. As for the criteria that a celebrity must be represented by a plus-division of a major agency to be deemed a model: that is poor reasoning to apply to someone who needs agency management far beyond modeling opportunities. Latifah is on the roster of William Morris Agency, acknowledged by many to be the most powerful artist management company in the world William Morris Agency's Queen Latifah page BGModels 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

SUBSTANTIAL EDIT!

I hope that what has been added makes sense, and adheres to an encyclopaedic format and concept. I've written a potted history of US modeling, a blurb about Mode and it's influence, a somewhat self-deduced state of the industry statement (which strictly speaking isn't able to be substantiated but is tangible) and revised the model entries with text from their personal websites and agency pages. Phew! BGModels 09:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the list of Mode models not getting a bit lengthy? Just wondering. Some of its girls definitely received a spotlight (e.g., Kate, Natalie, and Barbara had editorials, covers, and write-ups in the magazine), some of the other girls simply appeared there. Difficult to think of a cut-off for mention, so to speak (Manon? Casey McCabe?), but perhaps it is always better to identify more than less. 24.215.36.168 04:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do some of the model descriptions not have a bit of a promotional tone, which might not suit the encyclopedic style--e.g., "unique looks and megawatt smile," and "the nicest model in the business"? (Not disputing either quality, merely wondering if they fit, here.) 24.215.36.168 07:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

Am quite certain that the existence of the Ford 12+ division predates Gary Dakin's involvement. Instead of "to start" the division, perhaps text should read "to head" the division? 24.215.36.168 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If you are certain, then do you have a year for it? As far as I know Dakin left Curves to start 12+ and shortly thereafter all models from Curves followed him there, decimating that companys' division. Perhaps he 'developed' the division rather than started it. BGModels 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In Constantine Valhouli's "Curve" Documentary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299728/) Gary Dakin states the following on camera: "We're celebrating our 25th anniverary of the Ford 12+ division. It was the first and longest-existing plus division in the industry." IMDb lists Curve as a 2002 release, but a preliminary cut was, I believe, released in 2001. Dialing back 25 years from that would mean either 1977 or 1976 as the origin of Ford 12+. Anyway, "develop" seems right. 24.215.36.168 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be pertinent to add this to the entry. Surprised you didn't. BGModels 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a missing historical mention that Mary Duffy founded her plus size modeling agency and sold to Ford in 1988. Duffy is the author of HOAX. User:Isyouis 20:31, 30 March 2009

  • If you can find online citations from reliable sources then please add to the article. I am not sure of the relevance overall but if you can support the information, go ahead. 3RingCircus (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lane Bryant financials

Stating that the demise of the Lane Bryant show was a direct consequence of a specific Charming Shoppes financial plan, complete with figures, might require a footnote. 24.215.36.168 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Figures quoted are applied to the specifics of the transaction and reported CRP, which are freely available on the Lane Bryant website and other business reporting sites. As the demise of the 'event' fashion show (as opposed to in-store and other small scale productions) is not directly spoken to in any LB press release on their website and is in fact invisible on the internet as far as public-access research can ascertain, the parallel was drawn in the sense of chronology of the events. There is mention of a 'holiday' showing in 2004 on certain public forums (JoP et al) however there is no specific information remaining in the links they provide back to Lane Bryant. BGModels 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Diet ads in Grace

Did Grace run diet ads? Am fairly certain that it did not. (This was Figure's dubious distinction.) 24.215.36.168 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Models vs Celebrities, etc debate

Crystal Renn Entry

I do not think that Crystal Renn appeared on Larry King. She did appear on Oprah, Entertainment Tonight, Showbiz Tonight, and 20/20. Perhaps only Oprah should be mentioned, otherwise the list becomes quite long--and then, one might need to list Kate Dillon's TV appearances, Mia Tyler's, and so on. 24.215.36.168 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Was Renn actually the first plus model in Rolling Stone, or might that have been Mia Tyler? Would any presence of Tyler for a client in Rolling Stone need to be verified against Wilhelmina's dates of representation or is that nitpicking (viz a viz discussion on Queen Latifah?) BGModels 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mia Tyler

Of Tyler's many magazine appearances, I have no record of her in Rolling Stone, at least not as a fashion model. If she was in said magazine, given its subject matter, perhaps it was in the context of an article about her father? Also, Renn's inclusion in Rolling Stone consisted of a Torrid ad, yes? That's the only Rolling Stone appearance of which I know, for Crystal. Does that count, in this specific context? This goes to the relative weighting of editorial appearances vs. advert appearances, for models. (E.g., back in the 1980s, there was at least one Lane Bryant ad in Vogue, with unfamiliar but seemingly-full-figured models, but one would still be inclined to call Kate Dillon's spread the "first" appearance of a plus-size model in U.S. Vogue, no?) 24.215.36.168 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Johanna Dray

Google has it wrong about the Galliano show with Johanna being haute couture. It was pret-a-porter. The Vogue Web site identifies the "Everybody's beautiful" show as 2006 RTW: http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2006RTW/review/JNGALLNO

Note Johanna Dray pictured, tag: "Spring 2006 Ready-to-Wear": http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2006RTW/complete/slideshow/JNGALLNO?event=show1381&designer=design_house26&trend=&iphoto=21

The Spring 2006 haute couture show features no plus-size models: http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2006CTR/complete/thumb/CDIOR

  • Of course, any 'RTW' item shown by a designer who doesn't usually make any RTW garment over a EU44 must be made-to-measure (aka couture), as the 3 plus girls' dresses were. Dray's dress took 5 weeks in India to complete. Still, one must accept Style.com/Vogue's word on the matter. BGModels 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Camryn Manheim

Camryn Manheim never appeared in or promoted a Lane Bryant runway show, nor was she visible in any major company promotions of which I am aware.

  • Camryn appeared as part of a Lane Bryant/Venezia runway presentation on June 29, 1999 at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York. A simple Google search would have told you that. BGModels 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Google searches have been wrong before (witness the Dray discussion), but in the absence of contradictory evidence, will accept this point in this case. 24.215.36.168 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • "Camryn Manheim" "Lane Bryant" entered into Google yields entries that are all differently phrased, and speaking of her involvement as a spokesperson with LB. There are also media sources quoting Manheim in interview (Dimensions Magazine, etc) that verify this information. BGModels 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • My point about Galliano's specially made garments for the plus models still stands; the dress Dray wore, and indeed the dress Velvet wore also were later sold only as haute couture, no matter how they were presented at the actual show. This information is not in the public domain (I know Ms. Dray personally), and Vogue of course would not have cared to make the differentiation.
      • While Google is only as good as the humans who put info online and care to metatag it appropriately, it should be noted that a Google search is the first approach that the Wikipedia admins use to verify authenticity and merit of an entry, so I am merely following their example of trust in the search engineBGModels 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Hudson

  • Jennifer Hudson is not a plus-size model, but a plus-size celebrity. Should one not try to make a distinction? Broader parameters that include Hudson would make Oprah the first plus-size celebrity to appear on the cover of Vogue. This entry could become unwieldy, if it were to include every single mainstream magazine appearance by plus-size female celebrities. Just for one example, Rosie O'Donnell had a magazine under her own name, for a while, for which she appeared on numerous covers. Does this make her a plus-size model? Representation by a plus-size division of a major modelling agency, or by a notable plus-size agency per se, would seem to be a useful way to draw a distinction. 24.215.36.168 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hudson is listed under Plus-Size Celebrities, not notable models. As has been proven with the Latifah example, one does not need to be with a model agent to attract model work. Hudson is wearing clothes that Vogue's designer clientele hope to sell off the back of their association with her; is this not the very essence of the act of modeling? BGModels 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Jennifer Hudson should now be removed from the article. The description of the celebrities section in the article states: "Please note that celebrities who have lost weight since gaining popularity do not form part of this entry". And According to this [1] article, she HAS lost weight. Two full dress sizes. She also appeared on last week's In Touch magazine cover, as a celebrity who has lost weight. Therefore, she no longer qualities under the parameters outlined above. Aboutlegal 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comments about Oprah and Rosie noted; if the magazine were named Hudson and not Vogue they might be relevant. Oprah lost a reported 30 pounds before she was allowed on the cover of Vogue, so she was not plus at the time of her appearance on the Vogue cover. Please don't start debating over whether yo-yo dieting celebs are plus or not, that is beside the point of how they physically presented themselves at the time of their appearance in the media for a specific event, such as a magazine cover. BGModels 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The conflation of plus-size celebrities with plus-size models remains problematic. Countless straight-size celebrities appear in fashion magazines. Does this make them straight-size models? And more precisely, does this make them relevant to an encyclopedic entry concerning straight-size fashion models? Are Britney, Paris Hilton, etc. fashion models, simply because they occasionally model clothing, in addition to their other career paths? Suggest that a separate entry for plus-size celebrities, who occasionally model, but are not with agencies, would be helpful. 24.215.36.168 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that the existing headline and entry separate the categories sufficiently. I don't think that the Wiki will allow a separate entry but you are welcome to see what happens. I think they'll just refer back here.BGModels 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Otherwise, write up a motion as to what the definition of model/celebrity should be, and lay it out it clearly. If there are clearer parameters the question will be easier to answer on an individual basis. I'd like you to consider in your response the example of recording artist Syleena Johnson, previously listed with Wilhelmina NYC. Has this person ever appeared as a plus-size model? Can someone not actively engaged in the business on (i.e.) monthly basis call themselves a model by virtue of having a model agent? Is celebrity better assigned to those women whose names are clearly known to the general public? This would then reopen the debate as to the merit of including Christina Schmidt, and to a certain degree Mia Amber, among others. The definition of celebrity/model should also be considered at an international level, not merely a Nth American/Hollywood viewpoint. BGModels 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hudson is a celebrity, but currently has no paid modeling credits to her name, hence her deletion from the page today. This article is about plus-size models and women who are engaged as such. Every other celebrity named in this article has had paid modeling assignments. If Hudson is to merit entry to the article, then such entry should not list ONLY her acting and singing accomplishments, but highlight her modeling credits. When she gets some. Her appearance on the cover of Vogue is about the only thing that counts in that department, and wasn't even mentioned by the writer. At this point it is almost time to revisit the question of whether any celebs who do not engage in modeling as the primary form of employment should be named to this article. It will always be problematic and overly-U.S.-centric. 3RingCircus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

Toccara Jones

This entry is going to be cut back until sufficient substantition regarding "several Magazine covers" is provided. Names and citations, please!! ~~BG Models —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.36.120.8 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Notability of Agencies

A general query towards User:24.215.36.168's insistence that plus-size models need to be with 'notable' agencies. Defining notability of an agent/agency is entirely subjective and is not relevant to the definition of 'plus-size model'. Work is work, no matter where it comes from. To whit, some of the smallest US boutique agents have landed huge campaigns for their models, such as Nicole LeBris gaining national exposure with Just My Size via Flaunt agency in NYC, and Taylor Bartoe working for Lane Bryant via Brand LA some years ago. I'm sure you will agree that both of these women meet the basic criteria to be considered as 'plus-size models', regardless of their representatives. BGModels 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Not insisting, recommending and suggesting. This is a discussion. Would have regarded these agencies as notable as well. All points here are subjective to a degree--e.g., which campaigns are "huge," and how "huge" is measured. 24.215.36.168 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Flaunt is notable? *shrugs* Not by comparative standards of management, profile or success of models represented, but yes, I suppose it is a subjective - if educated - opinion I hold. BGModels 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • HUGE: A model would be very pleased to secure a booking for a client that will pay them additional monies over their standard day rate for extended usage rights (aka buyout, loading). If this amount is 2 or more times than the day rate they received, then that would be a very good amount indeed. If there is national exposure in a high-profile outlet (i.e. People Magazine) then better still. The JMS example is a complicated one because it involves lingerie packaging buyouts but trust me, the money was most definitely huge. BGModels 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Models as Advocates for Body Image and Self Esteem

  • It is not generally the regular business of a model to do anything other than present fashion. The media's need to find people deemed visually acceptable to present the idea of body image that has enabled plus-sized models to be used in this way. The alteration regarding this matter to read 'some people' is phrased well, but implies that it is now up to plus-size models to do this type of work. However 'some people' believe that plus-size models, with their relatively low dress sizes and toned physiques, still do not represent the majority of plus-size consumers. AntiVanity 06:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Walk the Catwalk

  • Until this project actually achieves something, it shouldn't be here. As of now, it hasn't achieved any change. Same standards that apply to entering models should apply to entering projects like this, as well. Maybe an entry in the future, when it makes an impact (if it does).
    • Please sign your comments. Change is different to achievement; please elaborate which is necessary to prove your point. The creators of this project released the Fenomenal Calendar for 2007, which was reviewed in Elle Magazine (both achievement and success), however the original entry detailing this was edited back on the ground of 'advertising'. Question: How does one quantify and/or qualify how much influence any particular website or idea has on its subject? AntiVanity 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The calendar is a separate project from Walk the Catwalk. If a designer says, "I was motivated to change the size of models in my show because of Walk the Catwalk," that's an example of successful change. If this project's influence cannot yet be quantified, that argues for its not yet being encyclopedia-worthy, just a project of good intentions. Quantifying/qualifying influence is part of what

Wikipedia is all about. If the creators appear on mainstream news programs (Oprah, Larry King, etc.) discussing their project, that too would makes it signifcant. Something to consider. I'm not saying it should never be included. I'm saying it needs to achieve greater prominence. 63.215.29.131 12:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

        • So it has to be news programs? Not industry-specific programming? If this lesser arena is acceptable, creator Liis Windischmann will be appearing on Fashion TV talking about the project in the very near future. National prime time coverage is scheduled as well. Entry can be held back until then if you like. AntiVanity 07:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Months later, and still nothing -- zero -- about this project anywhere. It's given a disproportionately huge paragraph in the article, inflating its nonexistent importance. Time to cut it back severely, or eliminate it altogether, until it makes anything like an actual media/fashion impact. Neckapply 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

General Note, April 12, 2007

As this page has come under the auspices of the WikiProject Fashion, there is going to be some major revision taking place, suggested by people in the Project. Therefore I would like to request that all direct edits be only for factual correctness; anything else like the querying of entries, etc be discussed before alteration as the question of listing model names, etc goes directly to the restructuring and clean up this entry needs.

The restructuring may include:

  • removal of model listings to individual pages where notability will need to be more thoroughly established;
  • removal of any item not related to the actual definition or concept of plus-size modeling;
  • removal of opinions regarding linkage to art history posed by the size of the models (separate topic, surely?)(1)

If you wish to participate in the discussions, please register formally through the links provided at the top of this page. Contributors to this page need to leave their bias at the door; the Wiki is a neutral entity and therefore not a venue for personal agenda. AntiVanity 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    • (1) If you're referring to "The relationship of plus-size modeing to classical ideals of beauty," this is not a separate but an integral part of the concept of plus-size modeling, and should therefore be retained; removing it would be to neglect an aspect of this topic. Besides the fine new Elena Miro image addition to this entry, Lara Johnson appeared in the editorial pages of Glamour magazine in May 2002 with a Venus de Milo replica; the Diana Chibas lingerie line ran a campaign in Mode that situated plus-size models in classical works of art; Kate Dillon appeared costumed as (and photographed in the manner of) Lillian Russell in the celebrity photograph publication titled Femmes Fatales; when Der Spiegel reviewed the first Lane Bryant fashion, they led with the headline "Wie ein Rubensengel" (like a Rubens angel) overtop an image of Kate Dillon...This is not to say that the comment should be expanded (brevity is desirable), but the fact is that this has been a notable aspect of plus-size modeling, at least since the time of Mode. 63.215.29.131 12:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Again noted as perhaps deserving a separate topic but with obvious linkage to this article. The way models are presented is not key to what they are and what they do - but it is auxillary, and worthy of elaboration, and also highly relevant to Female Body Shape. Perhaps you would consider developing an entry for Mode Magazine as the best way of addressing this topic more directly; you obviously have a good collection of issues. The mention of Mode Magazine on the Wiki should definitely exist more factually than a reference to the fictional magazine in Ugly Betty! AntiVanity 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
and
  • the listing of celebrities acting as models, which is problematic.
  • Would say the same to the above writer. Assume good faith. 63.215.29.131 12:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I always do, but as I do have particularly strong experience and knowledge of this topic I find it frustrating to find facts reverted to personal opinion, time and again AntiVanity 07:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (addition: and I admit I'm still learning what is acceptable as fact on the Wiki, through developing other entries with vanity and neutrality issues.AntiVanity 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

IMAGES

The images attached to this article over the last week have been auto-deleted due to insufficient copyright licence information. If anyone has seen a Wiki page talking about fashion photography and how to provide acceptable licence info so it won't be deleted, please link it to this discussion. AntiVanity 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

identical paragraph added to more than one section (+ formatting changes to match rest of page)

I noticed an edit (diff) to Plus-size fashion model on RC which added what appears to be the same paragraph twice on the page and does not cite any sources. The fact that it is so long and was inserted twice in seperate parts of the article makes me wonder if it is a Copyright Violation (possibly copied from elsewhere online). Regardless it shouldn't be listed in both sections in a detailed paragraph with no mention that it is in both sections (IMO, it shouldn't be in both at all) and the formatting should be changed to conform to the style of the rest of the page (bolding, indentation).

talk page move

I just moved this talk page and the reason was truncated in the page history. See the log for the full reason:

2007-07-25T16:13:22 moved Talk:Plus-size fashion model to Talk:Plus-size model over redirect (reverting page move of 2006-08-22: Page was moved along with the corresponding article on 2006-08-22 and then the article move was reverted the same day but the talk space page move was not reverted so the talk and article page names do not match.)

btw, if anyone knows why only one of the links I just inserted is a link (and one is bold), I'd love to know. My guess is it's because I'm linking to the page currently being displayed. Jeremyb 20:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the bold text, your guess is exactly correct. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The petition

There are several reason why I removed the petition reference.

One reason is because the site in question allows anybody to create a petition, and subsequently anybody (including the originator) may then hit the site with "votes" so as to give the impression, which may be false, of substantial support. Neither the originator nor any of the subsequent "voters" is required to establish his real life identity.

Another reason is because this form of petition is extremely vulnerable to scripted exploits ("vote-spamming"). Other methods (not least of which is putting a link to the petition on a high traffic website such as Wikipedia!) can be used to give a misleading result.

The significance of internet petitions is called into question by all of the above. If the desired end comes to pass, is this because someone in power took note of the petition and acted, or for other reasons? Unless we have verifiable information to the effect that the decision was made in the light of a specific petition, it really isn't appropriate to link the decision to the petition.

Another instance in which a petition may be referred to on Wikipedia is when its existence and purpose are described in a reliable source. This is a rarer occurrence than you might think, but it does happen. When it happens of course we can refer to the reliable source, and linking to the petition itself is probably not appropriate.

Finally it is almost never appropriate to link directly to an online petition of this type. When such a link does appear, it is up to the proponents of linking to the petition from Wikipedia to prove that this is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with this deletion. Furthermore, it referred to a specific event which is long over anyway (even the runway event to which it referred has long been discontinued), and since the petition had no actual effect upon the party to whom it was addressed (the network), it doesn't even have any historical significance. Neckapply 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

References to photographers

Recently the page was edited to remove hyperbole attached to David Bailey. While I agree that the choice of word was hyperbole it was not incorrect to label him "legendary". It is important to provide status to photographers mentioned in the article because it shows the advancement of the attitude towards plus-size models by the mainstream fashion industry. It is especially notable in the instances where the photographer is allowed to select their models, such as for the Pirelli calendar and in editorials, rather than for shoots where the photographer is engaged and paid by a plus-size client for their services and therefore *must* use plus-size models. AntiVanity 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

how do you become a plus size model.

This article does a wonderful job of telling what a plus size model is. However it would nice if it had a section on how to be a plus size model. In that section there would be the requirements that are held within the business. That way younger women are able to know what they need before they walk blindly into and agency and just ask to be a model. According to the website [[2]] here is a list of things you need when you go to find and agency. To Do List 1. Get some great snapshots: one full length, one headshot. 2. Call local and out of state agencies to find out about height and size requirements along with submission guidelines. 3. If attending an open call, wear classic but stylish clothing that hugs your shape. Keep make-up and hair natural. Make sure your shots have your full name and contact info written on them along with your stats. 4. If doing a mail-in, compose a short but detailed letter detailing your height, size, measurements, hair and eye color, and shoe size. Enclose your two shots with your letter. 5. Check in with all agencies one month after submitting if you have not yet received a response.

(138.87.168.121 (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Designers

The subject that has not really been addressed is desingers.Possibly it would be a good idea to include designers who are plus size friendly. I am not quite sure about and names but it is just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.157.101 (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Edit warring

I've just blocked both sides in the current edit war. Use the talk page please William M. Connolley (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • To the warring editors: I agree that the paragraph in question is biased OR; even though some plus-size models have appeared in published advertising images in contexts mirroring classical art, use of art references has long been the foundation of fashion photography of both men and women and is not exclusively the domain of plus-size modeling. In further support of the OR claims, there is no known academic or widely-published ongoing dialogue specifically on the matter of plus-size modeling and its relationship - in whatever form - to classical art. The only discussion supporting the claims of the paragraph in question is held in one place: the website and forum of www.judgmentofparis.com, which a) does not link appropriately to its sources, credit the photographers of displayed images, nor display appropriate copyright disclaimers; b) edits photographic images to the subjective POV of the authors; c) regularly edits reader comments to the subjective POV of the site administration and openly declares its intentions to censor its readers in text at the top of every forum page. Therefore, any connection implied or otherwise with such a website and its ideas should be removed immediately from this article. 3RingCircus (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I've semi-protected it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening statement of article

Recently there has been editing of the initial sentence, "Plus-size model is a term applied to a person who is engaged primarily in modeling garments that are designed and marketed specifically for large body sizes and types (see plus-size clothing)" to "...marketed specifically for fat or overweight people" with an Oxford English Dictionary citation attached. This edit is problematic for a number of reasons:

  • The use of the words "fat" and "overweight" perpetuates the commonly-held belief that plus-size models are fat and overweight, which is a fallacy.
  • "Large body sizes and types" adequately describes the physicality of the consumers without needing to use potentially offensive adjectives, and also covers consumers at the lower end of the plus-size garment size scale that ARE NOT fat or overweight. Sportspeople, for example, have a large muscle mass in arms and legs that often necessitates larger clothing. Are we really calling a champion rower or body builder fat?
  • If the definition of large body sizes and types needs further clarification, then let us discuss the rewrite first as a courtesy to the article's editors. Many might prefer referring to the appropriate Wiki article for obesity or overweight, for example, instead of relying on OED.
  • If we just cite the OED everytime we need a definition, then what is the purpose of the Wiki, exactly??

While it's all fine to quote W:PV as a defence, the edit is not indisputably neutral. This article is targeted for vandalism all the time by people wanting to add the word fat into the article for their own amusement. As per NPOV, all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I do not believe that the use of 'fat' and 'overweight' meets this criteria. If user: 79.97.166.36 can find a valid non-dictionary/non-encyclopedic citation that states plus-size clothing is worn by 'fat and overweight people', rather than simply trying to redefine ""large body types and sizes"" as per the requirements of NPOV then there may be some argument for inclusion of the phrase. Until then, let's not fix what isn't broken. 3RingCircus (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The user cannot cite the dictionary blankly, without quoting precisely what that dictionary says, and how this supposedly applies to this article. Precisely which entry is he referring to? The dictionary entry on "fat" does not mention plus-size models or plus-size clothing. The dictionary entry on "overweight" does not mention plus-size models or plus-size clothing. Does the dictionary have an entry for "plus-size models" or "plus-size clothing" in which the words "fat" and "overweight" are used? If not, then his source is not applicable, and the words "fat" and "overweight" should not be used. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)



  • “The use of the words "fat" and "overweight" perpetuates the commonly-held belief that plus-size models are fat and overweight, which is a fallacy.”

Even were this true, it does not matter one flying fuck. From WP:V: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

  • "Large body sizes and types" adequately describes the physicality of the consumers without needing to use potentially offensive adjectives, and also covers consumers at the lower end of the plus-size garment size scale that ARE NOT fat or overweight. Sportspeople, for example, have a large muscle mass in arms and legs that often necessitates larger clothing. Are we really calling a champion rower or body builder fat?

“physicality” means physical existence, so perhaps you should rephrase what you were trying to say. Construing adjectives as offensive is POV. The words themselves are not inherently offensive, their use in a given context is. If, having an argument with a random person on the street, one uses the term fat to describe them, fat in that context was likely offensive as offense was the word’s intended function. In the case of this article, fat and overweight are not judgmental value based terms such as “good” or “bad”, they are neutral descriptive terms. Saying that customers at the lower end of the plus size scale are not fat or overweight is original research. Please, do not resort to a Straw man argument with that sports person malarkey. I never said that we should call rowers or bodybuilders fat, I said that the OED defines plus size clothing as being designed for fat or overweight people. Champion rowers are not necessarily overweight, though they often are. Champion bodybuilders are near-universally obese.

  • If the definition of large body sizes and types needs further clarification, then let us discuss the rewrite first as a courtesy to the article's editors. Many might prefer referring to the appropriate Wiki article for obesity or overweight, for example, instead of relying on OED.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say with this one. We are not referring people to the OED articles on obesity or overweight, we are citing the OED as a source for a definition of plus size. I have no idea what the entries on these topics, in wiki or the OED, have to do with with the discussion at hand.

  • If we just cite the OED everytime we need a definition, then what is the purpose of the Wiki, exactly??

Straw man there again, please quit with the misrepresentation. I never said or implied that the OED should be the one universal source to which we always turn for all definitions. However, in this case I believe it to be the most reliable neutral source available.

While it's all fine to quote W:PV as a defence, the edit is not indisputably neutral. This article is targeted for vandalism all the time by people wanting to add the word fat into the article for their own amusement. As per NPOV, all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I do not believe that the use of 'fat' and 'overweight' meets this criteria. If user: 79.97.166.36 can find a valid non-dictionary/non-encyclopedic citation that states plus-size clothing is worn by 'fat and overweight people', rather than simply trying to redefine ""large body types and sizes"" as per the requirements of NPOV then there may be some argument for inclusion of the phrase. Until then, let's not fix what isn't broken. 3RingCircus (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

When precisely were you made the arbiter of appropriate sources? While I admit that I would rather, when editing any article, refer where possible to academic journals rather than an encyclopedia/ dictionary/ textbook, journal articles on the topic are hard to come by, tough I am in the process of researching them. In this case, I believe that the OED is the best reference at present available. I am not trying to redefine “large body types and sizes". I am trying to define plus size.

I do not know what is meant by citing the dictionary “blankly”. Citation does not generally require quotation, which is only used in certain circumstances. How it supposedly applies to the article? I don’t know about the entries on overweight or obesity mentioning plus size, as I haven’t looked at them. The entry I refer to however, is under, surprise surprise, “plus sized”. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • 79.97.166.36 is being selective in his definitions. The full OED has two different defintions, one for "plus size," one for "plus-sized". They are as follows:

plus size n. and adj. orig. U.S. (a) n. a large size of clothing; (b) adj. (usu. with hyphen) = plus-sized adj.

plus-sized adj. orig. U.S. (of clothing) sized to fit an overweight or fat person, usually a woman; euphem. (of a person, usually a woman) overweight; fat.

Since we are being very particular here, this article is titled "plus-size model," therefore there is no reason not to use the first definition.

Also, a useful fix to this controversy is not to speculate as to the persons for whom plus-size clothing is marketed. (After all, even male transvestites purchase plus-size female clothing, and they may not be fat or overweight at all, simply large due to their gender.)

Therefore, to sat that a plus-size model is engaged in "modelling large sizes of clothing" is the most accurate statement that one can make, fits with the OED definition, and does not engage in questionable and unnecessary speculation as to the identity of the individuals who purchase the products. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with 24.215.23.237. I have made further adjustments/additions/citations to clearly show that the size range of agency career models (i.e. not internet glamour or 'hobby' models) completely separates them from the sizing of plus-sized clothing and therefore there should be no more confusing discussion of plus-size clothing nor who that clothing is made for. Editors removing the references show an ignorance to the reality of the actual working life of the models. 3RingCircus124.184.249.159 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User 79.97.166.36: My edits are NOT vandalism. The paragraphs directly above this one illustrate correctly that we DO NOT have a need to define who the clothes are worn by in this article - that definition belongs to the plus-size clothing article. When you revert, you delete new citations and other necessary corrections to this article, which is counterproductive. Please participate in discussion prior to reverts (without swearing, if you can manage it) and take the time to check the article history for edits made inbetween reverts. 3RingCircus (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the cited articles before reverting, and please cease using Ad hominem arguments, if you can fucking manage it. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

    • I have read the citations, and agree with their applicability to plus-size clothing, but NOT to plus-size model. It is not the business of this article to define who the clothing is made for, only who models it as other editors have said above in this section, and also in previous sections in the early days of this article. Your citations concentrate on the issue of what type of customer buys what they wear, and therefore are best placed with the plus-size clothing article rather than this one. Accordingly, I have copied your references to that article, and will remove them on this one. It is contrary to collaboration and Wikiquette to use swearing and uncivil tone on the discussion pages. There have been no ad hominem arguments; I am using consensus previously reached by editors on the matter as my guide.WP:3RD . 3RingCircus (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Coming here as a result of a request for assistance with a dispute. It seems to me that most of the disagreement here stems from whether to use "fat and overweight" or not, is that correct? I am frankly not sure what use to readers there is to use both "fat" and "overweight" in the same breath. Laymen, which is what Wikipedia's readership is, would interpret either word to mean roughly the same thing, but "overweight" does not carry the same pejorative tone that "fat" does. I would support "overweight," but not "fat." There is no reason to use a pejorative word when other words convey the same meaning. On the other hand we want to be careful not to completely scrub our articles just for the sake of delicacy. Could we, perhaps, achieve a compromise something along the lines of ... "...clothing in large or extended sizes intended for overweight people ... "?
Also, anon, would you consider registering for an account? It would be much easier to communicate with you that way. I would also ask that you please control your tone. It's easy to get frustrated here, but there's really no excuse for cursing. — e. ripley\talk 20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
One other note to the anon user: Please stop tagging your edits as reverting vandalism. Good faith edits made as part of content disputes are not vandalism; this sort of behavior is not conducive to reaching an agreement among well-meaning editors. — e. ripley\talk 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the issue is not the use of fat or overweight, it is whether the definition of who wears plus-size clothing has a place this article. This article is about plus-size models; there is an article for plus-size clothing and definitions (where relevant) should be made there. Accordingly, I have copied the references to that article. I feel that as there is a redirect to plus-size clothing contained in the first sentence of this article that a doubling up of these references is redundant. This is what I wish to have addressed and resolved. Thanks 3RingCircus (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I originally went with fat or overweight is because that is what I found in the OED. However, I understand what you mean by saying that the two words are in general seen as roughly equivalent. The reason that this is such a sticking point for me is that plus sizes are not simply larger, they are designed with different proportions (bust and waist both being larger relative to hips than would be found in standard clothing sizes). A plus size model is someone who models plus size clothing, and that is what plus size clothing is. They do not simply model large sizes of clothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

      • My sticking point is that Plus-sized clothing also covers the ranges that are not specifically designed for increased bust-waist-hips but simply extend on the same upward grading as smaller sizes. Therefore I suggest we change "designed for" to "manufactured for". This dispute is still is about the clothing anyway, not the models. Why must this article bear the burden of proof when plus-size clothing exists???3RingCircus (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

3RingCircus: “Please participate in discussion prior to reverts (without swearing, if you can manage it)” Implying that rival editors may be incapable of civility rather than simply being uncivil in one given instance. Ad hominem. “Editors removing the references show an ignorance to the reality of the actual working life of the models.” Referring to those who don't agree with you as ignorant. Ad hominem. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to concentrate on getting agreement on content. I merely asked you to do the same without swearing. The second comment was written after your reversion removed newer work regarding model sizes, etc which at the time I thought was deliberate. I now see that it was not and I apologize. However, it must be pointed out again that your reversions are removing additions/citations/corrections/etc to the article among the reverts, which is inconsiderate of other editors' efforts. 3RingCircus (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof? That expression makes no sense in this context. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, instead of having a go at me for my choice of words, how about you actually answer the question? This is your sole contribution to this article, yet you do nothing of any merit to support it other than push your POV through reverts. 3RingCircus (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of assuming I'm having a go at your choice of words, you rephrase the question so that it is answerable? I wasn't criticising you for poor english use or somesuch, it's simply that that phrase, in this context, is meaningless; thus your question cannot be answered. It is not my sole contribution to the article, I have made many others. What exactly do you do to to support your contributions other than POV push through reverts? I went through multiple academic databases to find those references to back up what I was saying. How did you respond? By repeatedly deleting them, and inserting your unreferenced POV in place. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You have separated my comment out of the thread in which it initially appeared. Please do not break threads in this manner. Also, inserting your responses among other editor's comments is not proper discussion page protocol as it makes threads hard to follow. Please use indents, and ensure your comments are signed properly
The question that needs resolving has already been stated above in the thread with e. ripley, but for the sake of getting some kind of answer I will repeat it here in plain view.

Actually, the issue is not the use of fat or overweight, it is whether the definition of who wears plus-size clothing has a place this article. This article is about plus-size models; there is an article for plus-size clothing and definitions (where relevant) should be made there. Accordingly, I have copied the references to that article. I feel that as there is a redirect to plus-size clothing contained in the first sentence of this article that a doubling up of these references is redundant. This is what I wish to have addressed and resolved. Thanks (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the only issue I am pursuing with regard to your edits. As there is a Wikilink to plus-size clothing in the opening line of the article, your arguments for the citations to be included are best presented on that article's discussion page as they directly refer to who the clothing is made for. As can be seen by reading further into the definitions/requirements of plus-size models, plus-size models often do not wear plus-size clothing in the course of work, nor are they generally of a large enough size to wear plus-size clothing without alteration. Hence, your definition of who plus-size clothing is made for and its accompanying citations have no relevance to this article.
Additionally, I have noted that there have been two recent attempts under the IP number you bear to have the citations added to the article for plus-size clothing (initial 24Aug09, reverted 25Aug09), yet you did not seek so vigorously to have them included on that article as you have done here. What motivation is there to participate in an edit war in this article when a better location exists for your edits? If (when your unblock time is over) you revert the article back to your original wording and citations - and in so doing remove newer work to the article - without clearly explaining and allowing subsequent discussion as to why your citations should be attached to this article and not plus-size clothing, taking into account previous discussions reaching consensus that plus-size clothing sizes need not be addressed by this article (see: Section 6, para 4/5/6) I will seek dispute resolution on the matter. This is fair and sufficient warning 3RingCircus (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, it appears that I've misunderstood the real meat of the disagreement (no pun intended). I'll take another look here in a minute. — e. ripley\talk 02:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

First pp focus

Okay, just to refocus things a bit. Let's concentrate on the disagreements in the first paragraph. I've cleaned it up removing refs etc. for readability. The anon is seeking to have the first paragraph say: Plus-size model is a term applied to a person who is engaged primarily in modeling garments that are designed specifically for fat or overweight people.

3RingCircus would prefer an opening paragraph that says this: Plus-size model is a term applied to a person who is engaged primarily in modeling clothing offered in large or extended sizes (see plus-sized clothing). Females working as plus-size models range from U.S. size 8 and upwards, and are also engaged in work that is not strictly related to selling large-sized clothing, i.e. body acceptance commentary, stock photography, and advertising photography for cosmetics, household and pharmaceutical products, sunglasses, footwear and watches, etc. Therefore plus-size models do not exclusively wear garments marketed as plus-size clothing. This is especially true when participating in fashion editorials for mainstream fashion magazines.

The two first sentences really convey the same thing. Plus-size models primarily model plus-size garments. Then 3ring goes on to describe what size plus-size models typically are, and expands on the idea that they do not only model plus-sized clothing, but rather items such as watches and the like. (I would go even farther, and point out that people who model plus-sized clothing often are not really plus-sized themselves, but let's not muddy the water). I think the first sentence we largely have agreement on, save some minor wording issues. The question really is whether or not to include the rest that 3ring wants. Anon, can you tell me why you dislike the rest of what 3ring wants to include in the opener? It doesn't really seem unreasonable to me generally speaking, but maybe I'm missing some nuance. — e. ripley\talk 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

E.Ripley, it would seem I have to be very specific here. I realize that my posts and work-it-out-in-writing thought process make it dificult to follow my intent, so to summarize and be really clear (and please excuse my lack of knowledge on blockquoting and proper layout).
Prior to the edit war with Anon/IP:79.97.166.36, the opening sentence of the article was as follows: Plus-size model is a term internationally applied to a woman who is engaged primarily in modeling garments that are designed and marketed specifically for larger body sizes and types (see plus-size clothing). This article's editors had previously (see: [Section 6, para 4/5/6]) reached a consensus regarding the wording of the first sentence with particular regards to mention of plus-size clothing, i.e. that it be as unspecific as practical, if mention be made at all.
Anonymous User/IP 79.97.166.36 edited this statement to read: Plus-size model is a term applied to a person who is engaged primarily in modeling garments that are designed specifically for fat or overweight people[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (see plus-size clothing). and reverted it a number of times to this wording after editors altered it on the basis that 'fat or overweight' was pejorative or not accurately describing who wears plus size clothing. After I raised discussion on whether the phrase "fat or overweight" was pejorative, User 24.215.23.237 wrote in Section 32 on 4Sept09 that ''79.97.166.36 is being selective in his definitions. The full OED has two different defintions, one for "plus size," one for "plus-sized". They are as follows:
    • plus size n. and adj. orig. U.S. (a) n. a large size of clothing; (b) adj. (usu. with hyphen) = plus-sized adj.
    • plus-sized adj. orig. U.S. (of clothing) sized to fit an overweight or fat person, usually a woman; euphem. (of a person, usually a woman) overweight; fat. Since we are being very particular here, this article is titled "plus-size model," therefore there is no reason not to use the first definition. Also, a useful fix to this controversy is not to speculate as to the persons for whom plus-size clothing is marketed. (After all, even male transvestites purchase plus-size female clothing, and they may not be fat or overweight at all, simply large due to their gender.) Therefore, to sat (sic) that a plus-size model is engaged in "modelling large sizes of clothing" is the most accurate statement that one can make, fits with the OED definition, and does not engage in questionable and unnecessary speculation as to the identity of the individuals who purchase the products. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought this statement was a logical and sound interpretation of the OED and its best applicability to the article, so I agreed with User 24.215.23.237 as to the irrelevance of Anon's edits, and made the following comment: "... the size range of agency career models (i.e. not internet glamour or 'hobby' models) completely separates them from the sizing of plus-sized clothing and therefore there should be no more confusing discussion of plus-size clothing nor who that clothing is made for. " 3RingCircus 124.184.249.159 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 . Although in retrospect my comment reads a little heavyhanded and 'pronouncement-like', I felt that a consensus on the matter was reached between editors of the article both now and previously, as it was directly in-line with consensus reached as described above in Section 6, and so I adjusted the article accordingly. Shortly thereafter, Anon/User 79.97.166.36 reverted the opening sentence to their original edit, as they have continually done since their first edit to this article.
To date: Anon/User 79.97.166.36 blatantly disregards prior consensus reached, reverts with no regard for other editors' work, and has received no consensus relating to their edits. Whenever this matter of clothing sizes comes up, even if it is discussed differently and among different editors, the same consensus is reached - that mention of specifics be avoided, as it has its own article for such business. I remind Anon/User 79.97.166.36 that consensus is a fundamental policy for Wiki editors. Not one single person has agreed with Anon that this sentence, "Plus-size model is a term applied to a person who is engaged primarily in modeling garments that are designed specifically for fat or overweight people[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (see plus-size clothing)" should remain as it stands on this article, or at plus-size clothing where it better fits.
E.Ripley, I request only that the original opening sentence Plus-size model is a term internationally applied to a woman who is engaged primarily in modeling garments that are designed and marketed specifically for larger body sizes and types (see plus-size clothing) be reinserted (sentences following can remain as updated), and that Anon/User 79.97.166.36 be cautioned to stop editing against consensus. 3RingCircus (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading into the definitions/ requirements of plus size models where exactly? Should I read your mind? As one of the references I cited recounts the occurrence of models having to wear padding in order to fit into plus size clothing, I think for whom the clothing is designed is quite appropriate. Who wears the clothing? I do not care. For whom it is designed however is relevant as this impacts upon the design and thus upon the requirements of the models. The reason I revert less in the plus size clothing article is quite simply the fact that the references are not removed as often. I cannot revert something as often in one place as in another if it does not occur as often in both places, it is not a question of motivation. By the way, please do no misrepresent me as “motivated” to edit war. I am motivated to improve the article. Fair and sufficient warning? Why on earth do you feel that seeking of dispute resolution is something requiring warning? Dispute resolution is neither threatening nor a punitive measure, it is something intended to be helpful, so I see no need for your use of a warning. What exactly do you mean by “If (when your unblock time is over) you revert the article”? I am not currently blocked, and was not when you wrote that sentence, so please refrain from representing me as blocked on the discussion page as this implies that that I am being officially reprimanded for some breach of the rules. Yes, one model may model both plus size clothing and the other articles mentioned, but in that case they are not working as plus size models. If they model a watch they are working as a hand model, if household products as a commercial model etc. The “consensus” you mention is from two years ago. Articles develop over time. Please see WP:CCC. Furthermore, a discussion between two editors, with one brief contribution from a third, is no consensus at all. With regards to the multiple definitions from the OED, I have since added a further four references due to 3RingCircus’ repeated and vehement objections to the use of the OED as a reference. Funny how their tone changed when they found that the reference could be interpreted to fit their point of view. Furthermore, with regard to the multiple definitions in the OED, I believe that this article may be inappropriately titled. Do a google search for “plus size model”. Now another for “plus sized model”. Which returns more hits? “Plus sized model”. The title seems to be using a noun as an adjective. With regards to the last two paragraphs, I would remind 3RingCircus, as I have done ad nauseam, that ad hominem attacks are unhelpful and only cause me to view his contributions as being in bad faith. I would also like to remind him that consensus is not the be all and end all of editorial policy. There is also a small matter called verifiability. Particularly on articles like this, which would largely be edited by a specific interest group, the consensus between regular editors at the expense of outsider opinion is likely to lead to a biased POV. Consensus does not remove the responsibility to give due regard to other policies. Please see WP:CONLIMITED .With regards to 3RingCircus’ request for a revert to the original opening statement, why is it that now you are comfortable with a revert towards this sentence when only three paragraphs previously you said that “speculat[ing] as to the persons for whom plus-size clothing is marketed” should not be engaged in? 79.97.166.36 (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is approaching TL;DR (although I did read through it) and I still am not much closer to understanding why you can't create a consensus sentence. I looked at the past consensus, but really a consensus reached in 2007 can't be used to justify an article not being modified today. The anon is right in that respect. However, the past consensus isn't irrelevant. Editors should consider very carefully whether it is wise to modify very contentious information that has reached stability in the past after editors achieved a reasonable consensus. That being said, I have not seen any logical arguments that support both of your positions, only sniping at each other. Try to focus on the content dispute, instead of personalities.
I'll take a stab at it, then. What do you both think about this proposal for an opening sentence? Plus-size model is a term applied to a person who is engaged primarily in modeling garments designed for large or overweight people. To keep the discussion focused, I would recommend you focus for now on telling me why you do or don't like this sentence. — e. ripley\talk 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The current opening sentence (that they primarily model plus size clothing) works for me. I just don't want a return to the original opening that they model large sizes as this misrepresents what plus sizes are. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: 3RingCircus, until you learn some manners, I would kindly request that you, in the interim, suck it. xXx 79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey people. Let's all get along.--Applegigs (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Clearly not a helpful comment from the anon. I'd ask you to stop in the interest of improving this article. Focus on content, not on personalities. — e. ripley\talk 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. 3ring, what do you think of the current opening sentence? Which is: Plus-size model is a term applied to a person who is engaged primarily in modeling plus-size clothing. — e. ripley\talk 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was busy having a life and didn't see your question until now. The opening sentence is finally back to rights, it shouldn't have been changed in the first place. Yours suckingly, 3RingCircus (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lizzie Miller versus the other heavy people

My learned friend Mbinebri has just turned Lizzie Miller into a redirect to this article. Edit comment: "... per AfD recommendation ...".

Here's what the closing admin actually wrote:

I would suggest that a merge to Plus-size model may be prudent based on the potential lack of continuing notability beyond the one photo - but again there's no consensus in this discussion to do so, and a merge can be discussed on the talk page.

There was no such discussion.

Not that I particularly care. Though it does seem a pity to throw a well-sourced little chunk (however trivial) into a mess. Sample:

Natalie Wakeling is one of Australia's most recognizable [Evidence?] plus-size models due to well-publicized [Evidence?] appearances in Australian Cosmopolitan magazine as the first [Evidence?] and continued example of their editorial policy [Cite needed] of using models over an Australian size 12, as well as in advertising images for a wide variety [Evidence?] of Australian retailers. Wakeling was also the first [Evidence?] plus-size model to feature on a cover of Australian Cosmopolitan Pregnancy magazine in 2006. Wakeling created a plus-size premium denim brand called "Embody Denim", and as part of her commitment to educating young girls on healthy body image, Wakeling serves as an ambassador [Peacockese for "talking head"?] for the Eating Disorders Foundation of NSW.

Gotta love the notion of an Australian cosmopolitan pregancy, though! -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What the closing admin said is a recommendation as far as I'm concerned. He/she said the BLP1E concerns are valid and I decided to act boldly rather than start a conversation that, at best, would have been me suggesting the merge and then you just playing devil's advocate for the sake of debate (as it seems you like to do, Mr. No-Vote) as we waited in vain for additional input. And yes, this article does have some serious sourcing and POV issues. But just look at the Lizzie M. part as a lone bright spot in the article. :D  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article does have some serious problems with OR and Vanispam. Has to be said, the citations were placed by someone who lost an edit war - the tags are valid but you have to see how ridiculous the sheer number of them is? Suggest discussion on modifying article back to definition+job description+internal links to models passing merit. The article is going to get out of hand with current events such as VMagazine release - even agents are vanispamming the article now! AntiVanity (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Obesity levels"

This new element would seem at least to require a citation: "The development of the industry is closely tied to population change and obesity levels in affluent countries."

While there may be a link between developments in plus-size fashion and the weight of the population (which is not in dispute, although it would seem that this too would need a citation), it doesn't necessarily follow that plus-size modelling develops in accord with population weight. After all, the clothing could be modelled on straight-size models, as it still is by some companies (e.g., the Redcats catalogs such as Woman Within). Are "obesity levels" specifically affecting the development of plus-size modelling, as opposed to other factors? Are the two in fact tied? They may be, but such a claim does warrant a citation.

Also, the full statement now reads as follows: "The development of the industry is closely tied to population change and obesity levels in affluent countries. Accordingly, the majority of model agencies representing plus-size models exist throughout North America, Europe, and Australia." The word "accordingly" links the locations of "the majority of model agencies representing plus-size models" to "population change and obesity levels in affluent countries." But is the location due to all these factors ("population change" "obesity levels" and the "affluen[ce]" of the countries? Or simply to one -- to affluence alone? Again, to state a link between all of these factors and agency location would require a citation. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Point well made. Just seems to need some kind of information as to what leads growth or decline in this industry. But then, it could equally be said that such information; indeed anything more than a definition is not necessary in the article... AntiVanity (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so. As such, information without a citation seems unnecessary to the article. I recommend removal, and will proceed. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vanispam as citations

This issue needs looking at before it descending into edit warring. WP:V should be consulted, and editor quibbling over 'expert status' by those who have never worked in the industry be kept very short. AntiVanity (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

para: CRITICISM

I saw this new para added and felt strongly that it should not form part of the article until better written. Yes, the industry attracts criticism, but this particular article already attracts a lot of vandalism so whatever is written needs to meet merit. The para is pasted below should anyone care to try to rewrite it in such a way that does not a) directly attack any individual/model/company, b) has any statistics or quotes sourced to CREDIBLE media (i.e. international or syndicated originating news sources, not blogs), and c) keeps word count down. 124.184.14.175 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus size modeling have received criticism. Some commentators believe that plus-size models may be setting a bad example to women on how they should look. They believe that promoting large models may lead to women believing that having an unhealthy lifestyle is acceptable.[1][2]

There is also criticism about the size of plus-size models. Some plus-size models are size 10 or 12. The average size for an American women is size 14. These models do not reflect the average women's size.[3]

Some fashion designers have criticized plus-size models and have yet to embrace plus-size models.[4][5]''

The paragraph should be included. The paragraph does have credible links, therefore it does not violate Wikipedia's rules. --72.152.242.87 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Toccara Jones.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Toccara Jones.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Toccara Jones.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

plus-size/full-figured?

That photo of Robyn Lawley is meant to be of a plus-size woman? Seems quite thin to me. Beth Ditto is plus-size woman. 82.141.67.159 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Understood, but your response is subjective. The topic of this article is [plus size model], and Lawley is the current top model in the industry. In this context, an image of Beth Ditto is only suited to a biographical article relevant to Beth Ditto, The Gossip, or to music. AntiVanity (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The point of the IP, which I happen to agree with (and the two of us can hardly be the only ones), is IMHO obvious: Outside the fashion and entertainment industries and circles of clinical anorexics at least, a woman with Lawley's body shape would be described as thin, not as "plus-size" or "full-figured" (which are well-known euphemisms for "fat"). Medically, she is hardly even close to overweight (let alone obese), and she might even be clinically underweight (if slightly). Body dysmorphic disorder anyone? I think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to acknowledge that the standards of the fashion industry are ridiculously and even dangerously out of tune with the findings of medicine – lest any anorexic person take this photo as validation of their personal ideas of "fatness". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Robyn Lawley and Vogue Australia - clarification

It has been widely reported that Robyn Lawley was a) the first plus size model to appear in Vogue Australia; or b) was the first Australian plus size model to appear in Vogue Australia; and/or c) that she appeared on the cover of Vogue Australia. To clarify:

a) Crystal Renn was the first plus size model to appear in Vogue Australia (August 2006); she appeared via reprinting in part of an editorial shot by Steven Meisel for Vogue US (April 2004).

b) Retailer Maggie T has used an Australian plus size model in advertising in Vogue Australia (Oct 2008); thus Robyn is not the first Australian plus size model to appear in Vogue Australia. [6]

c) The model on the cover of the September 2011 issue featuring Robyn Lawley's editorial was Katie Fogarty [7].

The truest, ,most complete statement that could be made about Lawley's appearance in Vogue Australia is "Robyn Lawley was the first plus size model to feature in a fashion editorial created for the Australian edition of Vogue. AntiVanity (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Plus-size model/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The deletion log link provided by MZMcBride is circular and references back to this page. Where is the log? AntiVanity (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "America's War on the Overweight". Newsweek. August 26, 2009. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  2. ^ "Plus-Size Models Doing Big Girls No Favours". News.com.au. September 8, 2009. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  3. ^ "Fashion Week's Latest Trend? Plus-Size Models". NPR News. February 15, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  4. ^ "Designer Says Plus-Size Models Are 'a Joke'". The Independent (U.K.). June 16, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  5. ^ "'No One Wants to See Curvy Women': German designer". The Independent (U.K.). October 12, 2009. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  6. ^ [3]
  7. ^ [4]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plus-size_model/Archive_1&oldid=1080946577"