Talk:Rachel Zoe

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish Women Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs Editing

Spelling and Grammar is atrocious, but I know very little about this woman. Can someone who does make this page more readable? Jessica lp (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Rachel Zoe was born in 1961 not 1971. ***** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.150.216 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Name Pronunciation

The NYtimes article on her (Sept '07) states that her "last name" (actually her middle name, apparently used to hide her Jewish roots?) is actually pronounced "Zoey" NOT "Zoh" and that the latter pronunciation is an affectation she created. Thus, I think the article should clarify this. As it is, the article leaves the impression that her (fake) last/middle name is actually pronounced the way she created it.

How about we separate what the the NY Times said and what you think? The Times explained that her last name is pronounced "Zoh". They did not point out that her last name is "actually pronouned" some other way. They did point out that her middle name (back before her name change) was pronounced "Zoh-EE".

By the way , in your rush to "correct" the pronunciation, you also left the footnote referencing the Sunday Times that explains her last name rhymes with "faux". that's just plain confusing to readers. By and large everyone respects her wish to have her name pronounced a certain way. Who are you to come and say it shouldn't be pronounced that way and that it "really" is pronounced some other way? I'm going to revert your change. If you want to change back you need to justify why her name (which she created as a kind of brand) is really pronounced some other way than she says and everybody accepts. --MADISON 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually her agent who told her to drop her last name. On TV her last name is just pronounced "Zo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kured (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How her real name is pronounced is one thing. How her professional name is pronounced is another.

The naming of an individual involves deciding both the spelling and the pronunciation, whether it's a name your parents gave you when you were born or a name you later adopted. And if you change your name, it's up to you how similar or different you make it to your birth name.

As such, I'm inclined to believe it's as simple as this. Her real name is Rachel Zoe (zoey) Rosenzweig, but her professional name is Rachel Zoe (zoh). Whatever her agent wanted, what she would be known as was ultimately Rachel's own call, and she was equally within her rights to decide it's either Rachel Zoey or Rachel Zoh. — Smjg (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip

Why all the stuff about rumours of what gossip websites say? This is unsubstantiated, and thus should be dumped.

Feuding with Richie

Should we mention the public feuding btw her and former client Nicole Ritchie?[1]

Probably not, as the original post on Richie's myspace has been deleted.

I think at least with crediting Richie with participation of the boho chic look, it should state Richie and herself are estranged and no longer working together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.43.200 (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the link to Perezhilton.com, you'll find screen caps from her original myspace post.--Agnaramasi 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Born in '71? yeah, right.

Source for her dob?

Can't find any. --Catgut (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's on IMDb (I know - not a reliable source) and 1971 seems to jive with the age that she's been reported as being. However, I can't find a concrete source that states "September 1, 1971", and I'm tired of it being tagged with a {{fact}} tag despite the entire article being tagged for references, so I've removed it entirely. Pinkadelica ^♣ 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many valid references for the September 1, 1971 birthday that I'm putting it back in with some of the more credible references. --Crunch (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three references to cite her date of birth. Two from reliable newspapers (The Guardian and the LA Times) that should serve as confirmation of her age, and one quoting Zoe herself that should serve to specify the exact date of September 1, even though she is obviously not telling the truth about the year in that quote. There is no reason to think she is not telling the truth about the date. I will add more if this is necessary. --Crunch (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 98.200.115.81 has correctly indicated that two of those sources (The Guardian & The LA Times) only mention the age Zoe was when the interview was conducted. The third (which isn't a blog by the way) cites Wikipedia as the basis for her supposed real birthdate which is a circular reference at best. I don't doubt that she was born in 1971, but again, since this point is a source of contention, the reference used for her DOB needs to flat out state "Zoe was born on September 1, 1971". Until a reference like that can be found, I think it best to leave out her DOB out of the article completely. If someone else has a better solution, please feel free to comment here instead of just adding the content back in. Pinkadelica ^♣ 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just watched her show, I am unwilling to believe she's under 40. Add ten years and MAYbe... But the scarcity of reliable source material anywhere on the Internet suggests a deliberate campaign to obfuscate this information from the general public... which is interesting in and of itself. My little sister was born in 1972 and looks like she could be this woman's daughter. Or maybe Zoe just looks VERY bad for her extremely young age! KDS4444^Talk 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however: I just did a search for her on Intellius and that showed her current age (in October of 2009) as being 38. This search result was for a Rachel Z Rosenzweig born in the state of New Jersey, and indicated that this woman had the following relatives: Ronald A Rosenzweig / Leslie M Rosenzweig / Lindsey Rosenzweig / Rodger Rosenzweig /Leshie Rosenzweig / Pamela E Rosenzweig

Maybe I need to eat my own words... KDS4444^Talk 08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is intellius legit? Her husband roger isnt named 'rosenweig', it is berman, so this might not be the right rachel. Are the other names --ronald, leslie, lindsey, leshia, pamela-- her family members? I dont watch her show but perhaps she has named her family members?). Rachel definitely wasnt born in 81 like she is claiming, we need to prove it was 71. Or maybe 61 as she does look old and haggard. 64.26.99.120 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added September 1 1971 based on these:
born September 1 http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/09/happy_birthday_rachel_zoe_1.html
born in 1971 http://celebritybabies.people.com/2010/11/17/rachel-zoe-pregnant-expecting-first-child . I agree with you all that she looks way older than 39. She is wrinkly & haggardly ooking due to her anorexia. But now since she is pregnant she must not be anorexic anymore. It will be good to see her gain weight & be healthy. Look @ how healthy Nicole Richie is now that she has had 2 kids. Thank You. 69.243.24.147 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources explicitly state she was born on September 1, 1971. One just says she turns 39 and the other is based on her Twitter feed. Pinkadelica ^♣ 22:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People magazine and Ny mag are reputable. Are we not allowed to subtract? Is there a rule that the source has to explicitly say Rachel Zoe was bonr on 9.1.1971? I read you comment up above. You think it is best to leave out her DOB, but we have to have consensus. Many have posted 9.1.1971 as her DOB. I don't think it is fair for you to decide what the source will be and will say. I'm readding. 69.243.24.147 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if IMDB is not a reliable source for DOB, why is the Writers Guild of America and celebs trying to force it to not list their DOBs? The WGA said this :
IMDb is committed to being the most comprehensive source of film, TV and celebrity information. Customers of IMDb trust that when they use our website, they are receiving comprehensive and accurate biographical information. When we are made aware of information that can be verified as inaccurate, we remove from IMDb, as nothing is more important to us than customer trust."
Sources :
http://www.slashfilm.com/should-imdb-display-age-listings/
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2010/06/18/2010-06-18_age_listings_provoke_feud_between_writers_guild_of_america_and_imdbcom.html "The Guild has a contract with IMDb to provide credits information and does not release information on age," Neal Sacharow, a spokesperson for the WGA, told TheWrap.com. "We have raised our concerns with IMDb about its listing of ages." In most cases, individuals or their publicists provide the biographical data for their IMDb profiles ...IMDb will only remove it if it is inaccurate, an IMDb spokesperson told TheWrap..
So why is imdb an unrealiable source? 69.243.24.147 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to debate why IMDb is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, take that discussion to the appropriate place. (Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source by many other standards) It was decided long ago that IMDb is not considered reliable for biographical content and going on about it here isn't going to change that fact. Further, you ask where it states that a source must explicitly state the fact it supports, that would WP:V and WP:SYNTHESIS. These are Wikipedia policies, not my opinion on the matter. Personally, I couldn't care less what DOB is presented in the article but since no one can provide a reliable source that explicitly states Zoe's date of birth, the content should not be included per Wikipedia policy. If you want to claim that's me holding the article hostage and not abiding by consensus, you're free to bring this up to an administrators or the numerous notice boards provided throughout Wikipedia (including WP:BLPN, WP:RSN and WP:ANI). Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your an *ss, you're being unreasonable. Let's ask for help. 69.243.24.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And I see you can't spell simple words. Open an RfC if you're so inclined. Pinkadelica ^♣ 14:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Photo

I think that the photo on this article is a bit unfair and unflattering to Ms Zoe. It shows her nipples! I don't think that is a fair representation of this hard working, stylish woman. Maybe some of you guys like it but that's not a great reason.

Does anyone agree? Vintageandhaute (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the photo either. I don't like how it is in black and white. Anyone have a better photo? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unflattering? Offensive? Perhaps both, maybe neither. Point being, it is Zoe. She allowed the picture to be taken and was wearing that outfit for a portion of that day, it is, what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.43.200 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help!

{{help|New York (magazine) states that RZ was born 1 Sept. This is a well known fact she has posts bday messages to herself on this day and has been have a borthday party on /around 1 Sept for years now. So why is the NY mag link not acceptable? People (magazine) states RZ is 39, so subtraction means she was born in 1971.
George Washington University states she graduated in 93 so after subtracting we agin get 71.
I did read WPBLP. Self sources from the person are allowed so long as the arent self promotion. So doesnt this mean RZ stating on her twitter that her birthday is 1 Sept is a reliable source? Thank You to who ever or whom ever helps us. 69.243.24.147 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Well, it's not suggested to use Twitter. I mean, she could be lying. If an independent publication (news, etc.) says her birthdate is the same, though, then we're assuming she's telling the truth. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blending those sources and doing math to figure out how old the subject is synthesizing. Last time I looked, we're not suppose to do that. That's the reason the DOB has been removed various times, because there's not a source that explicitly states what her DOB is. Since the subject has been a source of contention in the past, we need a source that's crystal clear. If anything, a proper RfC needs to be opened regarding this issue to get a broader community view. One person coming in and bitching about not being able to use IMDb and calling me an ass for pointing out basic policy isn't someone I'm terribly interested in working by myself with. Pinkadelica ^♣ 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Zoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727194414/http://www.rachelzoe.org/rachel-zoe-biograpghy.php to http://www.rachelzoe.org/rachel-zoe-biograpghy.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]