|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria's Secret article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Pink (Victoria's Secret) was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 30 September 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Victoria's Secret. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
- 1 Criticism
- 2 why isnt this bigger?
- 3 More Photos
- 4 How the Name was Selected
- 5 Removal of advertising
- 6 controversy
- 7 removed lengthy list of supermodels featured on fashion shows
- 8 Location?
- 9 Company details?
- 10 Products
- 11 This is Blatant Advertising
- 12 What's the secret?
- 13 Customer service
- 14 Izabel Goulart
- 15 Emanuela de Paula
- 16 adding a note towards the Sonata arctica song Victoria's Secret?
- 17 Ratings, fashion show information
- 18 Karolina Kurkova Contact
- 19 Needs a major overhaul/possible revert to earlier date.
- 20 Angels...
- 21 Terrorism
- 22 Catalogues
- 23 Who is?
- 24 Adriana Lima 1998.
- 25 Details of founder's suicide
- 26 New Angels
- 27 Former VS Angels list accuracy
- 28 VS All Access page
- 29 TV Acres
- 30 Angels sources
- 31 Forbes
- 32 Ghauri listed but not North?
- 33 Reorganization for Angels table
- 34 Heidi Klum is American too
- 35 Re-adding the Supermodels
- 36 Revamped table
- 37 Lindsay Ellingson
- 38 Monikangana Dutta
- 39 Removing Rosie
- 40 Some missing element
- 41 Parking Suspicious Content
- 42 Source
- 43 Significant copy edit required
- 44 overlinked
- 45 How many stores, again?
- 46 Lily Aldrige
- 47 2014 - archiving of TP
VS, like it or not, does have legitimate criticism from religious and women's organizations, and that criticism shows up every year the Fashion Show occurs. You can check any major newspaper for their pre-Fashion Show article and they will devote a paragraph to the critics. Therefore, we will too, and any attempt to delete the criticism will be quickly reverted. Calwatch 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
These are pictures of women wearing VS's Product? What are you expecting to see on their site, Eskimos in parkas?
Speaking of criticism, shouldn't something be mentioned about Victoria's Secret using unnecessary amounts of virgin paper when printing their catalogs?
True. There has been critisism from lots of groups and organizations. We should at least mention it... Snowonster 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
why isnt this bigger?
its sorta small for such a large company.
---On that note, it could deffo use more info on the differences between the collections VS offers, e.g., IPEX, secret embrace, angels, emma, body by victoria... the section on lovepink is a good start.
I suggest that there be MORE, MORE I TELL YA photos of Victoria's Secret supermodels featuring the company's products (i.e. langerie) accompanying this article for informational and educational purposes.--Ruthless4Life 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Better? I added image of the logo and Gisele Bundchen. mirageinred 05:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Informational and educational? Sorry, we all know what you're looking for. The VS article won't be edited to include tons and tons of erotica.
How the Name was Selected
I would really like to include a section if possible, of how the person came up with the name of "Victoria's Secret". What Victoria was he referencing? Queen Victoria? Why did he decide to do this.
Name has nothing to do with Queen Victoria at all. Victoria was simply a name the founder (Roy Raymond) thought sounded sophisticated. While behind most names there are great marketing stories (such as a train ride in Europe when Mr. Raymond met a beautiful woman with gorgeous lingerie just barely showing from beneath her blouse), the truth is often bland, as is the case here.
- The origin of the name would be a good addition in the article. Please editors work on the research. Geraldshields11 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Removal of advertising
Removed the following paragraph, since it reads like advertising:
- "The sale occurring twice a year at Victoria's Secret and Victoria's Secret Beauty offers the cheapest prices of the season, offering a plethora of deals. The first sale of 2007 will begin on January 3rd. Don't miss it."
Smart choice. Definitely sounds like advertising to me. Snowonster 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a part mentioning the criticism of the ultra-conservative United States society
The article should include lawsuits brought against Victoria Secret and the rulings, such as Ronit Menashe and Audrey Quock vs. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, Victoria's Secret Stores, Beauty Corporation d/b/a Victoria's Secret Beauty, and Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC (2005). This case was brought on my the plaintiff's use of the term "Sexy Little Thing, Sexy Little Things" which was confusingly similar to Victoria's Secret "Sexy Little Thing" lingerie line. The court ruled that even though Quock was unbeknown to the use of Victoria's Secret "Sexy Little Thing" when she started her company in August of 2004, Victoria's Secret had priority over the trademarked term because of the term used in stores was in July 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
removed lengthy list of supermodels featured on fashion shows
The information was simply excessive and unnecessary. mirageinred 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
But why is there no mention of Yasmeen Ghauri here?
If it's based in San Francisco, then why is it in Category:Companies based in Ohio? --Sakaki22 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe because Limited Brands, the company that now owns Victoria's Secret, is based in Ohio. When I get my paychecks, they come from Ohio. --Soon to be Ex-Victoria's Secret Employee
- Actually, Victoria's Secret is based in Ohio. The primary Victoria's Secret Stores building (Distribution Center 4) is located in Reynoldsburg, Ohio on the same campus as the Victoria's Secret Direct building (Distribution Center 5). It may be notable to mention that the Stores are operated under a different business umbrella than the Catalog/Website. That's why there's only limited product overlap between Store inventory and Catalog/Website (Direct) inventory. Both are operated under Limited Brands. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
How about some company details please? Number of stores? CEO? etc. Sure, the fashion stuff is fun and guys can drool over the pictures but there's no details here.
- I also feel the credit card should get a mention. Not many people realize there's a card, not to mention that signing up customers for it is a requirement of continued employment by their stores. Info such as the bank that backs it could be included. I realize that other retail stores have credit cards, but Victoria's Secret sells relatively low-ticket items compared to Best Buy or Sears where one can spend upwards of $500 or more on a single electronics item or home appliance. I'd add the info myself, but I have to run to work and fold undergarments. ;) --188.8.131.52 11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping someone can elaborate more about VS Beauty products, Angels, Secret Embrace, IPEX, Very Sexy, Body, etc. I would love to but I haven't found any references. (Number1spygirl 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)).
This is Blatant Advertising
This page is as much blatant advertising as any other page discussing the history of a company. Why is Victoria's Secret allowed to "advertise" here and other companies have their pages removed just because they are small and just getting started?
- Because it is a notable company. --Dweller 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I have told the user by e-mail: no company is allowed to use Wikipedia for advertising, big or small; this page is not an advertisement and its content is not controlled by the company; as a matter of fact Victoria's Secret is notable by virtue of being a major nation-wide company with yearly revenue of thousands of millions of dollars; your company doesn't seem to be, being founded last year; if you believe it is, the burden of proof is on you (or anybody else who wants to create an article about it); and ultimately, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, that is a compendium of existing knowledge, not a means of making something known. Am I being clear enough? - Mike Rosoft 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the secret?
If it is Vicoria's Secret, then what's the 'secret' the company name refers to? Jacob Poon 21:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Angelo Retita is THE SECRET!!!! ssHhhHhsSh..... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Though much has been said about the models, no one has mentioned how Victorias secrets came into existence. I had the opportunity of attending a business quiz where a question was asked on the founder. I dont exactly remember, but the person had something to do with internships or something similar. If anyone gets such iformation, please be kind enough to post.Unik1985 (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As several people have noted, this article makes no mention of Victoria's Secret's aggressive customer service/credit card sales, which is a key aspect of the company and has caused a bit of controversy as well. If nobody objects, I am going to add information about this, I'll keep it NPOV and verifiable. Thanks. OhMyLola (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Emanuela de Paula
Is Emanuela De Paula really the new angel?
adding a note towards the Sonata arctica song Victoria's Secret?
wouldn't it be applicable to add a note somewhere saying that the Finnish PowerMetalband Sonata Arctica made a song about this company? Victoria's_Secret_(song) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The song isn't about the company. Although I think it's safe to say that Tony Kakko chose the name in a tongue-in-cheek manner. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ratings, fashion show information
update the ratings for the fashion shows as well as a general discription of the show and its theme, where it took place? and models appearing on each fashion show. The 2008 show had an encore showing on the cw on 12/17/08 the rating of this show should be noted in the chart as well. `````.
Karolina Kurkova Contact
It is a long suspected subject that model Karolina Kurkova's contract with Victoria's Secret has expired in March of 08. She was signed with the company in 2005 to a three year contract (like the rest of the angels exception being Adriana, Alessandra, and in the past Gisele) and has since expired. News reports from fox news and many other sorts have claimed that she was nearly not allowed in the show, when it's printed and spoken in videos where the angels are guaranteed a spot in the show no matter what. She had one campaign last year, and was not in the mainstream Christmas commercial, and was not at the launch of the new Victoria's Secret Store in Lexington when all the angels participated (except for Adriana who had a family emergency, but showed up the next day) While this could all be placed under speculation, askmen which is a reliable site placed on their profile that "word is she will not be returning as an angel in 2009. But staring in..." With all of her information correct and a company that could back up the facts, I don't think it's an unreliable source. Now if this is not to be included Izabel Goulart should be included on the roster...for their is no "source" for her not being an angel. Now it's common knowledge and lack of work that shows she is no longer an Angel, but no official source just words on a message board. Now with the facts of a 3 year contract, lack of appearances, lack of campaigns, and only 2 outfits in the fashion show when angels are guaranteed 3 and now a valid source I think it's pretty much safe to not include Karolina in the roster. Karolina is not yet famous enough to make a huge media buzz when she gets dropped from the squad so if we are waiting for more official word than what's been included it could be all the way up until November of 2009 when she's not on the angel roster, which makes the list inaccurate for more than half the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Izabel was confirmed as no longer being an Angel when she wasn't included in the VSFS '08 pre-show events specific to the Angels, even though she was in town - that's indisputable; but there's nothing comparable to that for KK. Has her contract expired? Possibly. But for the time being, with as many points as might be made, none of it is definitive; there is still only the rumor about it, and the Askmen page simply confirms the rumor's existence by saying "word is..." Not to mention, Askmen is closer to a gossip site than a news source. For news, they're not reliable. And by the way, putting details about Adriana in even this just wastes readers' time. talk ← 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The remarks about Adriana not being at the appearance, was necessary if the images where brought up and she was missing it would have been asked. Anyway, actually Izabel was at the events with the angels and she was included in most of the mainstream beach photos as well. So that's not really a valid argument. For example Behati isn't an angel but appeared at the VS store gift appearance in Miami, but she isn't an angel. But for argument you could say Izabel wasn't there because she couldn't make it but she was at the other events. She was at the other events...what I'm saying is there is no valid source saying Izabel is no longer an angel. There won't be for Karolina either because of her status with the company. Like I said it would take most likely till next year to confirm this, while we could use the same logic that's being used for Izabel, and the fact it was on Fox News stating she was almost not included in the show when it's a proven fact the angels are given their spots in the show their is no almost. So if you're going to use lack of evidence to provide Izabel's stature the same should be used for Karolina who has even more stacking up that isn't in fact an angel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Debating this much longer is pointless, so here is the opening of the VSFS 2008, the point of which is to introduce the entire Angels line-up: Heidi, Ale, Doutzen, Karolina, Selita, Marisa, and Miranda. It doesn't include Izabel because she's clearly not an Angel, while it does include KK, because she still is/was an Angel as of December 2008, which disproves that her contract expired in March or at any point up to the end of 2008. As of 2009, there is nothing to suggest she's not an Angel anymore. talk ← 14:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll let you take this one, and when it's very much proven she's not an angel. Being credited in the show really means nothing, because her contract did expire in March, hence no campaigns, no commercials, and being replaced in the biofit campaign. Also hence the 2 outfits, and not even being promised a position in the show. But I'm not going to be the one who's going to look like a fool when more sources like fox news and askmen report on it...Also just so you know, what your doing for Izabel's stuff is ORIGINAL research...something you used on me...so again find a real source if you want to make it a valid argument. Like I said you won't find one because she wasn't famous enough to receive any press about it...same goes for KK. So like I said without a verified source you can't disclude Izabel from the line up and include KK when you don't have a source for Izabel and there are several sources backing up the fact KK is no longer an angel.
- You want a source on Izabel no longer being an Angel? Here you go. It was very easy to find. Being featured in the show's opening means nothing? LMAO! You are hilarious sometimes. And Fox News says KK wasn't in pre-show press and almost got cut from the show due to weight gain problems. It says nothing about her contract expiring - nothing does, in fact; all you have is your own inventions to back yourself with, like always. talk ← 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly foxnews informs us she almost got cut. As a contracted victoria's Secret Angel...there is no chance of that, and that has been said in many articles. So with them informing us she almost got cut and was a last minute addition, it shows us she's not longer contracted. As well as the lack of campaigns, and being replaced in the biofit ads, and non appearances. Along with a reputable site backing up the claim she's no longer an angel backs up that fact. Like I said, it could be until next year with her lack of fame to find out. But with no appearances, replacement and lack of commercials, as well as fox news and askmen articles It's pretty safe to assume she's no longer an angel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- When you actually do find a reputable source specifically stating that her contract is up (because we both know you haven't yet), let me know and I'll personally update all the relevant articles myself. talk ← 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No please don't...I would rather never ask you anything. Anyway, once I find more reputable sources (which I love how you can have none or unreliable sources, or original research, but I have to have 2 or 3) you preach rules but break your own. You need to start practicing what you preach...Anyway, I'll update it..
I finally moved her to past. I found a document from CBSexpress which is a site that deals out press images and press releases to companies showcasing upcoming events. In the press release it announces all the angels except for Izabel and Karolina. This is no coincidence at this point. Karolina's contract expired in March 08 and she was not credited for that reason after loosing her contract. Izabel was not included either which we also found out because loss of contract. Every other angel is listed, I believe CBS is a pretty good source. Not that it matters but most people know that Karolina is no longer an angel and to find better proof than the CBS link is not going to be possible until the 2009 fashion show in November, which would leave this page incorrect for several months. I think this document is the evidence that was needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, confirmation bias is convincing you articles are saying what they're not. Other sources have said KK being held out of the press releases like the one you cited was due to her weight issues and VS being unsure whether they would let her walk - her contract status wasn't mentioned and there's no proof to assert it was any type of factor. But I recently read on BZ that anything showing KK (as well as Selita) is being removed from VS stores, so I'm willing to see the writing on the wall, so-to-speak, even if all your "proof" falls apart with the least bit of thought. talk ← 01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So again you break the other rules you force down everyone else throats along with never learning manners at all. By the way...then Selita needs to be removed because god knows If I did it or anyone else you'd claim it was wrong...but do it yourself gosh knows you won't be happy otherwise. Also don't preach something you don't follow yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Needs a major overhaul/possible revert to earlier date.
The article in its present state is pathetic: it is far too short and 3/4's of it is about the fashion show and the angels.
-I suggest to clarify and remove clutter from this article that a separate article on the Victoria's Secret Fashion show(s) be created.
-That the section "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show" be redone as a brief synopsis of what it is rather than an attempt at an overview of its history and the history be moved to the proposed separate article.
Irishman76m (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that there might be some undue weight issues here concerning the importance of the Angels and Fashion Shows to VS relative to how much of the article those sections comprise, but I don't think a separate article for the shows is quite warranted when List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models seems to cover the show pretty well. Maybe just renaming it to "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show" is all that's required, along with a pairing down of the current section? talk ← 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems our list of VS Angels is incorrect. VS put up a poll on its official Facebook asking who everyone's favorite Angel is, and the list includes Selita and Behati Prinsloo. Considering someone also emailed VS about the official Angel list several weeks ago and the person who responded also said Selita is still an Angel, it seems in all likelihood that she never lost her contract, unlike what one particular editor here so badly wants us to think. talk ← 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Then change it, if you think so She lost her contract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Since when Behati Prinsloo is an angel? I mean, she always takes place at the VS launches, but always as the spokesperson for PINK - so she has a similiar status of an angel, but she's not one actually! If so, she would have been an angel since 2008 and not 2009!
- She's been an Angel for verifiable purposes since VS listed her as one of the Angels walking in the '09 VSFS on the AllAccess main page. At first, I disputed it too, but it's there on the site and VS isn't reneging the claim. Not to mention, if Ale and Miranda were both Pink spokesmodels and became Angels, I see no reason to think Behati couldn't have followed the same path. talk ← 15:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
But there are differences between Ale, Miranda and Behati! Contract-Angels usually wear three outfits in the annual fashion show, and Behati only wears one outfit and only in the PINK-section. Furthermore, she wasn't featured in the christmas-commercial and she also doesn't have the same introduction in the CBS-version like the other contract-angels. I still believe that she's only the spokesperson for PINK but not an actual angel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can only wish there was an indisputable place I would point to in order to say who is an Angel and who isn't, but unfortunately VS doesn't have a habit of making things so obvious all the time. You can say Behati wasn't featured in the Christmas commercial, but that commercial had a number of models who aren't Angels, so there's really nothing you can get from that. As for an intro in the show, prior to it there were photos/candids of Behati shooting an intro in NYC but it was apparently left out, as was other reported material - mainly a music video remake for the show. And yes, she only had three outfits, which is odd, but I don't work for VS so I can't explain that one. All I can do is point to the VS AllAccess site where it says Behati is an Angel and say that VS has yet to remove her and go, "Oops, our bad!" talk ← 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Aaah, bad argument to say that non-angels were also featured in the christmas-commercial! Victoria's Secret always featured non-angels to appear in their christmas commercials: Emanuele de Paula, for instance, in the 2008 christmas-commercial and Ana Hickmann, Angela Lindvall, Oluchi Onweagba and some others in previous commercials. I mean, I just saw a short footage of the first tape of the 2009-fashion show, and Behati wasn't even posing with the other angels in the front, but somewhere else. When it comes to "Oops, our bad!": I mean, they already made the mistake to introduce Emanuela, Rosie, Candice, Lindsay and Chanel on their official facebook-site with angel-profiles and later they changed it into "new faces". I mean, I was probably the only person that didn't believe it unlike others until Victoria's Secret clarified it! So I think my intuition on Behati's-case is rightly the same! Maybe Victoria's Secret itself doesn't even know who is a contract-angel and who not! xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
there are rumors out there that VS was a common target of terrorist attacks in Israel before the Israeli defence wall was built and that locations in Manila and Madrid were also attacked and that a D.C. sniper killing occured on the other side of a mall with a VS location. is any of this true? if so than list these attacks. At the vary least tell us what countries VS operates in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
whatever. More fear mongering. Don't believe everything you hear.
Soemone it should be mentioned about the infamous/famous christmas dreams and fantasies, its swimsuit issues, and its valentine's day catalogue.--Cooly123 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)
There is no real proof or documentation that wasn't pulled from the VS facebook that the "new angels" are in fact correct. CBS didn't even have those names correct, nor one of their "new angels" in the show. Part of an angel contract is to be present for the show. Erin was never listed on facebook as one of the "new angels" even when they did make the mistake in doing that. VS instantly took that down, and replaced it with "new faces" Emanuela wasn't in the show at all, which she would have been contracted to appear. I don't think their really is enough documentation (that wasn't pulled from facebook or etc) that guarantees them as angels, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know who this model is? I could not find her in the list of models? I just saw her for the first time in the latest catalogue. http://www2.victoriassecret.com/images/prodpri2/V292112.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Kylie Bissutti is not a full angel. According to the vs all access page, she is simply a runway angel. And as much as it really kills me to say this, Marisa Miller is no longer listed as one of the supermodels which is basically the list of angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- The model in the photo you linked to is Marisa Miller. And that, along with Miller still being shown as an Angel on the AllAccess main page (and in very recent media) is enough to make her not being in the "Supermodels" list more of a curiosity than a fact of not being an Angel for the moment. After all, it was only several months 'after the fact that we could really be sure models like Kurkova and Goulart lost their contracts. Time will tell, and if some people who claim to know an Angel shake-up is imminent in the new year are right, we'll find out more before long.
- As for Bisutti, yes, she is not a contracted Angel, as I've said before in edit summaries and as 126.96.36.199 says here. All the models wore jackets that said "Angel" on them in pre-show events, but like with Bisutti, that doesn't make them Angels a la Lima, Ambrosio, etc. talk ← 03:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Adriana Lima 1998.
Adriana started working for the company in 1998, it's been stated by Ed Razek in several interviews. Also, Adriana's first national campaign was the Spring 1999 Cotton Collection, now it's not officially stated anywhere but everyone knows that VS shoots their spring campaigns in the winter before (Alessandra Ambrosio's twitter, she states she's shooting spring as of right now) so that would have made her shooting the campaign and commercial in late 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The year she began working for the company has been thoroughly debated in the past, obviously with no definitive result, hence it's disputed. talk ← 16:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
In the VH-1 special of the "Angel Across America tour", Ed Razek said that Adriana started working with them, when she was 16 years old! Since Adriana Lima was born in summer 1981, she had to be already working with them before summer 1998 because that's the year when she actually turned 17! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Razek said she was 16 and Lima has said herself she began when she was 18. As I said, it's already been debated and mediation did not support one side or the other. talk ← 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, when Ed Razek was talking about her working with them since she's 16 years old, they rolled a picture around that showed Adriana in a commercial-shoot that resembled the first angel-campaign, which was done in 1998. I think Adriana didn't even know if she was sure when she supposedly said she began at 18. I mean, we all know for sure that she walked the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 1999, which was held in February, and by that time she was 17! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, let's clear up a few things. The pics that rolled in that video were from the Angels Uplift campaign which happened in '04, way later than the original '97 Angels. This is Lima's first campaign and first VS job. Now, we all know she was in the VSFS on 2/3/99, so this was obviously cast and shot before castings, fittings and all this happened, thus, she was first booked in late 1998 for a spring 1999 campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you're getting that the black and white commercial was shot before the 1999 fashion show, or how it even matters. You're point seems to be simply that she was theoretically booked in '98 for a '99 campaign, and theories are irrelevant here. All the dates for the models in the article should be based on the publication of their work. Including content based on potential booking dates for any of the models is guesswork and original research. Arguments based on OR is all there ever has been in the debates over this. talk ← 03:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting it from the fact that a first job is a FIRST job, thus the VSFS 99 can only be a second job, thus happening afterwards. This is further backed up by the upper cited VH1 Special which has Razek saying that he thought Lima loooked like a baby when he first saw her and then the camera started rolling, once again placing this shoot (or at least a shoot) before the 99 show, as well as an E! video I once saw on Youtube and will do my best to find. Also, the table lists "Hiring" not "Publishing", "Airing" or "Walking". And finally, if Wikipedia is about consensus (see the Ellingson debate below), the consensus here is against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to establish something as happening prior to the '99 VSFS is not the same as proving it happened in '98. Your argument is still nothing more than original research and synthesis, and that's all that's ever been provided for the whole 1998 argument. I provided a source stating she began with VS in '99. If you have a reliable source specifically stating she started with VS in '98, feel free to provide it. talk ← 20:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Details of founder's suicide
"Raymond's next business venture ended in bankruptcy. Raymond killed himself by jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco." Is this relevant at all to this article? However tragic, the details of any other business venture by Raymond and the information about his suicide don't seem to belong here. On an article solely about him, yes. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the info's inclusion to be a problem. As being notable only for founding VS, it's likely that an article on him would be merged here with whatever content it had anyway. That said, for what it is, it's not like it goes into actual detail about this other business venture. Both pieces of info are appropriately brief and rather vague. talk ← 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The following models were added to the Angel's roster: Chanel Iman, Emanuela de Paula, Lindsay Ellingson, Candice Swanepoel, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Edit the page accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmdoxie (talk • contribs) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Former VS Angels list accuracy
No, no, don't worry, this isn't about the always-confusing topic of who currently is an Angel, but instead about who really have been Angels in the past. The former Angels list is only sourced for models we know unquestionably to have been Angels because they're fairly recent. So who was verifiably among the early Angels? This source says: "Among the "Angels" used in the original promotion were Argentine model Maria Ines Rivero, Brazilian beauty Adriana Lima, German enchantress Heidi Klum (pronounced "Kloom"), feisty American Rebecca Romijn, and the luscious Tyra Banks (the first black model to make the cover of Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue)." It also says the Angels debuted in 1999. These points throw the accuracy of the list we have into question (although the accuracy of the source is also questionable). The article goes on to have Stephanie Seymour explain the origin of the Angel concept, so if we throw her in, that gives us Rivero, Lima, Klum, Romijn, Banks, and Seymour as early Angels. That leaves out Christensen, Ghauri, Casta, Mulder, and Pestova, all of whom our list has as original Angels with no support. Do we have sources on them truly being Angels. I'm a little concerned that over time, editors added prominent names to the list because they wanted to, no one objected, and people came to accept the list as true. Same with the dates. Where did they come from? How do we know they're not completely made up? So does anyone have sources? The Angels have always gotten a lot of press, so if these models—Christensen, Ghauri, etc.—were Angels, surely there are sources somewhere saying so. If not, they should be removed. talk ← 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Still no takers, huh? Well, I've continued digging and I'm coming to more and more doubt concerning the list's accuracy. For example, NYMag.com's profiles on many of the pseudo-Angels state that the given model worked for VS, and even held contracts with the company, but all years before the Angel concept, including as far back as '92. In the case of Yasmeen Ghauri, she's listed as an Angel for 1998, yet she apparently retired from modeling in 1997! There isn't much of a case for Pestova either. Supposedly an Angel for five years, but only walked the Fashion Show twice in that time? That makes no sense. The only thing I could find regarding Christensen as an Angel is from a 2nd-rate blog of some dubiousness as her official site, with its Angel claim obviously lifted from her Wiki page. Not to mention, Angel status isn't even asserted in many of the articles on these models. It's only mentioned that they posed for VS at some point. In light of all this, I'll start with the corrections. talk ← 18:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is this vid on youtube, and it shows five models shooting the first ANGEL-campaigne, also including Daniela Pestova, Helena Christensen and Karen Mulder (named as angels at 4:29). Here's the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn5L8PLoGzY&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link, although it's a typical Youtube copyvio and therefore can't be used as a reference. But there was no apparent cause to revert the entire former Angels list back to what it was before. We have verification for the three models, and that's all that should have been added. I edited the list accordingly with that in mind. talk ← 05:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's another article http://www.askmen.com/celebs/keywords/victorias-secret-angels.html : This time mentioning Laetitia Casta as an Angel, besides Seymour and Banks. So actually you can find the proof that those models were Angels. It's not your prerogative to omit the names without even doing research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- ROFL @ the part that I didn't do any research. It's also your prerogative to only add/change what the reference verifies, and this new ref only verifies one additional name (Casta) and nothing else you keep changing the list back to. In fact, it contradicts some of the info you keep reverting it to. talk ← 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL, if you supposedly did research you would have keep the names of Casta, Christensen, Mulder and Pestova. It wasn't difficult at all to find those references, so I don't know what kind of research you did, but surely not a good one. You are the one who contradicts himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? STOP reverting back to a mistake-filled list. The sources you offered verify only the inclusion of a few more names, yet you insist on returning the entire list, including unverified names and unverified dates, many of which are contradicted by the very sources you offer. You're not even paying attention to your own sources! As the list stands, it is all that can be verified. Stop with the disruptive editing. talk ← 05:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you want to discuss it here: Romijn never wore wings, nor was she ever in an Angel commercial. Rivero has been in campaigns, but a lot of models have been too and that doesn't make them Angels (see Onweagba, Barros, Fontana...). The Angels are always credited at the beginning of fashion shows broadcasts right? Well Casta and Klum were in 1999, Bundchen in 2001... I won't list them all I don't have time but you can check on youtube/megavideo/whatever. And the Angels concept started out as a lingerie line, then the commercial beame popular and VS thought "hey why not use them in our show", as seen in the video above, which happened in 1998. The source about Rivero, Romijn and so on is mistaken, so is the askmen one, they both list non Angels as Angels, I wouldn't consider them reliable. And I can find sources that say that De Paula is an angel, does that mean she is? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Finally someone who paid attention! YES, the angel-concept started as a line and then was firstly featured in the 1998 show! Seriously I never had the impression that Romijn and Rivero were angels nor Ghauri, who just signed up for a contract in 1992, but that's before VS started the whole angel-concept! As for de Paula: It's clear for a while that she's not an angel (yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
VS All Access page
I probably should have brought this up earlier, but it seems more an issue now then ever, so here it is. We need to come to a consensus of whether we should continue to use the VS All Access "Supermodels" list as an official Angels list (which is what is being done, although it's not used as a cited source). Earlier last year, the list only included what we knew to be the Angels, and it was a small group. Since then, VS has added numerous names to the list and judging from the forums I've been on, it seems many people are not convinced anymore that to be on the list actually verifies Angel status—if it was an Angels list, why is it not called that? It says "Supermodels," not Angels, so the list might be including lesser contracted models as well. If that's the case, we're essentially spreading false information here. Plus, we don't have verification from reliable sources for many of the new names, so perhaps they should be omitted until proper sourcing comes along. Opinions? talk ← 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- The section is already a mess anyway. Klum, Rivero and Romijn weren't original Angels. The original Angels were Christensen, Banks, Seymour, Pestova and Mulder in a commercial for the "Angel" line. Then it became very pouplar and they used it everywhere. Likewise, they didn't make their debut in 1999, the 1998 show already had 4 of the 5 above cited women in wings. I haven't found any shread of evidence that Romijn was an Angel either, no wings, no commercial, no picture, nothing, aside from the same repeated line from the ref on like 5 sites, sites that have used the previous versions of our very own wiki page as source and askmen (but it lists Ginzburg as an Angel and she clearly isn't). Rivero's status is also a bit dubious. Anyways, back on topic, VS uses supermodel/bombshell/angel interchangeably in their videos, so to me it's not an issue. Iman, Huntington, Ellingson and Swanepoel have been listed as Angels on the brand's facebook, Huntington, Heatherton, Ellisgon and Swanepoel were "credited" at the beginning of the 2009 FS in between the Angels so to me, we can still use that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sticking to the points related to the topic... I've never seen the terms "bombshell" or "Angel" used interchangeably. In fact, an editor recently added a video from the "bombshell" marketing campaign as a ref to verify Heatherton's Angel status and the term "Angel" seemed specifically avoided. Yes, numerous models were credited in the opening of the 2009 VSFS, but never as Angels, and when it came time to promote the show in NYC, for example at Time's Square when all the models got together, the models we knew to be Angels were front-and-center (seen here) while models like Heatherton, Swanepoel, Huntington-Whitely, and Iman were in rows further back. With that in mind, it does not seem VS is opposed to highlighting models that aren't Angels, like with the VSFS credits, and the All Access page looks like another example of that. As for Facebook... it's Facebook. And when several new models were dubbed Angels there, the page was quickly removed. I still say we not interpret the All Access page to be saying something that it's not, and wait for proper references before including models, as basic Wiki policy would support, and has happened with Whiteley and Swanepoel. talk ← 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, we don't have any "proof" but a lot ofconverging informations. You can wait until the next show but chances are they are Angels (or supermodels, as they seemed to be called, nowadays on the videos). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- So is assuming ownership. Once upon a time, I wrote on the page that the angel moniker was getting used more loosely and it was deleted. I guess the best was to settle this dispute would be to write something along the lines "as of late 2009, VS started using the Angel name while referring to runway models, with highly contracted models being referred to as supermodels". Then again, you own the page, I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
From that day on they promoted "Behati Prinsloo" as an Angel, I've never seen Angel All Access as a reliable source to confirm a model whether is or is not an angel. The credibility of that list is as inaccurate as the official facebook-page of Victoria's Secret. I gotta agree that I've never heard of Romijn and Rivero as angels either, and YES! Finally someone who knows also that the Angel-concept was already used in 1998! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't thinkg Angels-All-Access is a reliable source... there was a time when they omitted Marisa's profile and now she's strangely back on the site...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- We don't know yet that the Angel concept was used in 1998. Wings in the show and a commercial for an Angel line could have been the eventual inspiration of the Angel concept, but it doesn't mean the concept was used yet; per the source, it only started in 1999 and until something reliable provides compelling evidence to the contrary, it's what we have to work with. But that's not what this topic is for, so could we confine this topic to the previous section please? talk ← 14:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- They didn't "forget" Miller, she was there at first. Her contract expired and she was taken off from every. single. VS related thing. Then she negotiated a new contract and she was added back. And if Iman, Ellingson and so on aren't Angels, then why aren't Decker, Carvahlo and De Paula also on the site? Why weren't they added right after being contracted? Their addition means an upgrade and you can either be a "face" or an "Angel" as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If we used our common sense, then we should know that not every model mentioned in the supermodel-list is a contract-Angel. Why should a company pay 10 models a six-figure-contract during the economic crisis?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense that Marisa's contract expired earlier this year since she was contracted in the end of 2007, which actually means her contract would be up for the end of this year - not the beginning! @Mbineri: come on! I posted you a youtube-video with the beginning of the Angels (remember?) and they featured footage of the 1998 fashion show, saying THAT's the debut of the Angels in the fashion show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Using this as a source is proof of lack of common sense. The source lists Romijn as part of the "original Angels of 1999" and then goes on to list the models who took part in that same show, amongst whom Romijn is not. If the source is contradicting itself, I say remove it. Especially when we have a clear source that states that the original Angels were Pestova, Banks, Seymour, Mulder and Christensen/North and that they started in 1998, for which we even have pictures (try getty images, Mbinebri). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you can provide a reliable source that contradicts the TV Acres site, I will welcome it with open arms. Finding sourcing to make a reliable list is exactly why I started these discussions. I don't know what "clear source" you're talking about that states who the original Angels are. Please provide a link here. And no Getty images is not a source: it's a photo repository. As for Romijn not being in the runway models list, I don't see any reason to think the list was meant to be all-inclusive, as it only says "the webcast included..." The VSFS templates show Romijn was in the 1999 show. talk ← 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- E! Models unposed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn5L8PLoGzY&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! That video (or at least a section of it) is exactly what I was hoping someone could dig up: a direct, reliable statement on who the original Angels were with enough to assume a date. The only problem is, it doesn't give us additional models or ranges of dates. talk ← 03:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- And I would also add that TVAcres states that Lima was an original Angel. If so how comes she wasn't credited at the beginning of the 2001 show among the other Angels (Pestova, Bundchen, Banks & Klum)? Clearly the source is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Romijn was never in the 1999 show. That's just total crap like believing Klum was in the 2006-show just because she's an angel. @mbinebri: I think this site should be supervised by a Victoria's Secret-expert and you are certainly not one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- This article should be "supervised" by people who understand Wiki policies like verifiability. But if you dub yourself a so-called expert, feel free to prove it by providing sources with statements that can improve the article like the video linked to earlier in this section. talk ← 03:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
well, it doesn't change the fact that you are not a Victoria's Secret expert, and I just give you the video-link because that was the only way to convince you that Christensen, Mulder and Pestova were angels which you would have already known if you would've been a VS expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The first Angels commercial was filmed in 1997, not 1998. http://www.herbritts.com/images/commercials/ Christensen's last one was the English Lace commercial in 1998. North's only Angel involvement was the 1998 runway.
Casta, like Klum, is credited at the beginning of the 1999 broadcast and wears wings in it, I guess that makes her a 1999 Angel, just like Klum.
Lima was made and Angel in 2001, not 2000. She is clearly absent from the line-up (Bundchen, Klum, Pestova & Banks) given at the very beginning of the 2001 show broadcast and its Angel commercial, but present in the 2001 What is Sexy commercial. Accordingly, Mulder and Seymour had been removed of the line-up prior to the 2001 show.
Casta's and Pestova's exits are tricky as they did Angels commercials and appearances at least until 2003 (a quick youtube/getty images search would confirm that, however I have yet to find a WP:RS) but their last FS were in 2000 and 2001 respectively.
If we list the Pink spokespersons, we can list Iman, Heatherton and Ellingson as "supermodels" with a line explaining that starting in 2009-2010, VS started referring to some models as such (the Angels and those 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it sounds more accurate that the angels-campaign first started in 1997 because back then the fashion show was always held around Valentine's day - so at the beginning at a year not at the end like nowadays. E! had a special about the first angels and they said that they (Banks, Pestova, Christensen, Mulder and Seymour) were known as "the angels". So the first campaign had do be published in 1997, so the angels had time to become known at first before the 1998 show was held in February. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- VS's facebook has been updated, they show Iman and Heatherton (as well as Swanepoel but not Huntington) as Angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, those are also the only two official pages we have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Rivero, Casta, Mulder, Pestova, Banks, Seymour in 1998 http://img189.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=70431_1998-11-vsc-xmas-8-0-steph-daniela-laetitia-karen-ines-tyra-h_122_472lo.jpg
Christensen, Seymour, Banks, Petsova, Mulder in 1998: http://img132.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc384&image=96576_1998_03_vsc_spring_v4_2_0_daniela_helena_stephanie_tyra_karen_h_122_384lo.jpg
Erin Heatherton http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=resources/lifestyle_community&id=7269371 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
According to this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/12/top-earning-models-business-entertainment-models.html Doutzen Kroes is their last Angel. So none of Prinsloo, Swaenepoel and Huntington are Angels. At this point it is also debatable whether Miller is still an Angel or has been downgraded.
As far as dates go:
- Helena Christensen: 1997 original commercial-1998 English Lace
- Stephanie Seymour: 1997 original commercial-2000 Cannes show
- Karen Mulder: 1997 original commercial-2000 Cannes show
- Daniela Pestova: 1997 original commercial-2001 show
- Tyra Banks: 1997 original commercial-2005 show
- Chandra North: 1998 fashion show
- Ines Rivero: 1998 Angels 2000 campaign-1998 Christmas Angels
- Laetitia Casta: 1997 Christmas commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_dvboorgsc) -2000 Cannes show
- Yasmeen Ghauri: 1998 Angels in the catalog
- Adriana Lima: June 2000 Arena cover-ongoing —Precedingunsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh. If I write to VS and say "pretty please" would they send us an official list of the current Angels? I'd rather have a source confirming material, not contradicting it, but if we're going based on this Forbes article, then it looks like there is a compelling case to argue that Doutzen is the most recent Angel signing. But then again, Prinsloo and Swanepoel saying they're Angels is compelling too. Plus, there's that VS has been promoting Swanepoel and R.H.W. like crazy lately, which is odd for non-Angels, and a million legit sources now passingly refer to those two as Angels, posing verifiability issues. In other words, what's more reliable? Forbes or the models themselves? I might lean toward non-Angel status for those three, just because I recall seeing Swanepoel doing swimsuit work for a rival company, which I thought was disallowed by an Angel contract, but maintaining the change is going to be a pain. As for Miller's status being debatable, between who is and who isn't, the dates of former Angels, and Heidi still being listed yet never doing anything Angel-like, what isn't debatable at this point concerning the Angels?
- I'd seriously prefer to see secondary sources (a vain hope, I know), but it looks like enough research has gone into the former Angels dates now for me to be on-board, if someone wants to change it. talk ← 00:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know... The thing is, VS has been promoting just about every model recently (Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellinsgon, De Paula & Iman prior to the VSFS, Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellinsgon, Decker and Mariano for swim, Swanepoel, Heatherton & Iman for the Nakeds, Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellinsgon, Heatherton, Niiaria & Iman for BBV, and now Huntington and Swanepoel for the "bombshells") but they did use a Onweagba a whole lot back in the days, even as non Angel, so it doesn't mean much. If we don't follow what facebook and VSAA say, why should we follow what the girls say? Icould say I'm an Angel, that doesn't make me one. Right now what we could say is that the brand started in 1997 with commercial, which had a big impact, leading to follow-up commercials (Christmas and English lace) and with Ghauri, Rivero, Klum, North and Casta as models for print (see above), following years are less blurry and then by the end of 2009 the focus shifted from Angels to supermodels. If we go strictly for Angels, then Forbes is as reliable as it gets. They even quote Razek in the blurb so they would know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- No one else has an opinion then? Damn. Well, a few days ago I posed a generalized question regarding this issue, particularly the reliability of claims by a subject in an interview versus another source, and the responses I got were of no help at all. And yes, it's a relevant point that VS has used many non-Angels in advertising, but none of them were so widely referred to as Angels as Swanepoel and Whitely have been by reliable sources. talk ← 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although it's clearly not a solution, I went ahead and tagged the "Current" list as disputed. talk ← 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my same thought when I saw the forbes article, claiming Doutzen being the last contracted angel. I think we have to wait for this year's fashion show to see who will be included in the introduction. I know, last year the intro also featured Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellingson, Prinsloo and Heatherton, but their intros were a bit different than the real angel's intros. When it comes to Huntington, I don't think her source claiming her being an official angel is accurate. It's not an interview, it's an article calling her an angel, but I also saw an article on essence.com claiming Chanel Iman being an angel. When it comes to Swanepoel, I think she's an angel because she said she was made an angel a couple months ago in that Cosmopolitan-interview. I don't think she's a liar. I know, Adriana allegedly once said she started working with VS when she was 18, although she walked the 1999 show when she was 17, but you can confuse your age at certain events, but being an angel, you cannot confuse it - either you signed a contract or you didn't. Or she was simply misquoted in that interview. As for Prinsloo: I never thought she was an angel. She should be removed from that list. I mean, how could you possibly sign a 6-figure-angel-contract by doing nothing than PINK and not even standing next to the other angels during the last year's 1st taping of the fashion show. Plus: She was never featured in the forbes-list although she's supposedly an angel since 2008. I know she also claimed to be an angel in that Cosmopolitan-interview, but I think she entitled herself being one since she's the PINK spokesperson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Prinsloo saying "almost two years" coincides more with her PINK contract anyway than with her being an Angel as she wasn't in the "credits" in late 2008 (and only at the end of 2009's). Likewise, Swanepoel was probably referring to her contract being upped. I agree on Huntington's source, it mostly coincidates on that same VSAllAccess page date-wise. I'm also very iffy about them being Angels and Ellingson not being, as they were added on the. very. same. day. All in all I say go with Forbes, it seems to be the most reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- So Facebook is bad but Facebook videos are okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just throwing it out there as fodder for argument. talk ← 02:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems like we have to wait for this year's introduction of the fashion show which is like the most accurate source we have. Yes, I know there have been Lindsay, Behati, Erin, Rosie and Candice in last year's intro as well, but like I said their intros were a little different from the real angel's intros (Alessandra, Miranda, Marisa and Doutzen posing backstage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think that Behati being a PINK spokesmodel must be an Angel as she's done work for VS as well, then Rosie probably is with the Transformers preview, and also because there's a YOUTube video of her and Alessandra's lives as Angels. Then Candice has so much work for the brand I think there's a great possibility she is one, but I don't think Erin, Chanel, or Lindsay are just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Victoria's Secret gradually uses the term "angel" as loosely as other media as well. Lindsay is most def not an angel because she was heavily used by them like a season and now she's kinda gone. It's all about Candice, Rosie, Erin and Chanel now to become the new angels, but like I said - the term is used so loosely nowadays that we can't even recognize a truly new angel if there's a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ghauri listed but not North?
- As it says in the article, North was a fill-in on the runway for Christensen one year. I see no reason to think qualifies as Angel status. talk ← 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you have a source proving that Ghauri was simply a fill-in like North, feel free to share it. talk ← 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Reorganization for Angels table
First off, I can see that creating the recent table was a lot of work, and it does look clean creating a sort of timeline rather than separate "current" and "former" lists, but it's a big enough change to warrant a consensus first, and there are some issues. For example, what evidence is there to back up the "first contract" dates? How do we even know the models were contracted on these dates anyway? The table supports that there is officially a contracted "Supermodel" status, when there are no sources that I know of that actually address this - it's still fan speculation. It also basically says not only that Supermodel status encapsulates Angel status but even trumps it (via the bolding). Maybe the would-be reference that the editor attempted using (the ref contained no actual link) would have cleared some of this up, but w/o that link, the table just looks like a fan reinterpretation. talk ← 15:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The dates come from their first job/campaign/runway (whichever comes first). I put contract because it sounded better. You may notice that a lot of the spaces were left blank, that's because I don't know when the models were first hired and am planning to do the research.
- The Supermodel listing was basically a way to satisfy everybody and keep the page from being edited every other minute by people who want to list Candice/Erin/Lindsay/Rosie/Chanel/Behati, as even VS seems to use the term Angel very loosely (see the announcement of this year's show and the NYPost blurb on Heidi's departure). The term was chosen because its what the company appears to refer to them by on the "official list" (alongside Angel, which appears not to encompass the above 6 and maybe Marisa, and Bombshell, which is basically referring to the member of a campaign, like Bodies before it). Bolding was just for added clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point on referring to first contracts, as "First started working VS" or something similar sounds clunky, but we don't actually know when a model simply working for the company actually became contractual, so the label is still misleading and virtually unverifiable. As for the research you want to do, keep in mind WP:OR. It's not up to us to do research; that's for actual sources. If certain info is only obtainable through our own research, it does not belong on Wikipedia. I completely understand the need to come up with a system that satisfies everyone, but I think what might be best here is renaming the section "Spokesmodels" and creating subsections and individual tables for Angels, PINK spokesmodels, and "Supermodels." That way, we can at least give details prior to each table, rather than lumping everything into one as if it's all interchangeable. I just spend the past half-hour experimenting with using timeline-graphs for a more visual perspective on VS spokesmodel status, but it's a lot of work for saying nothing new. Ugh. talk ←
- I meant google search, and maybe TFS lurking, not actual fashion history research. Just going by press releases about the VSFS and Forbes/NY Post articles you can probably find dates for the recent Angels at least and all fashion show debuts. I think an introductory line such as "the brand currently lists 12 active supermodels" would be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Heidi Klum is American too
To the person who keeps removing the flag in front of her name, please check your facts: http://celebritybabies.people.com/2009/03/09/heidi-klum-becomes-a-citizen-for-her-children/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Re-adding the Supermodels
Not that I'm against the idea (hence the line about the 13-supermodel line-up), but most of the sources used pre-date the Forbes article that stated Doutzen was the last sign up adn as far as the "Angel line-up" goes, the CBS press release made it clear that all models who take part are Runway Angels, so yeah... Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- On the CBS website for the Fashion Show, there are videos that very clearly let us know that many of the models we've been debating on for the last year were indeed, Angels, specifically, Candice and Chanel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Which videos? On the other hand, this chart looks like pretty solid evidence to me: http://www.bellazon.com/main/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=1191973 also, while not in accord with the Forbes source, Behati introduces herself as an Angel in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDEuJEeRUso , that we can't blame on misquotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- On the vsallaccess page for the Fashion Show, on the right-hand side you can scroll through what's clearly stated to be the Angel line-up, and it contains Swanepoel, Whiteley, Iman, etc. I think at this point we're only kidding ourselves by continuing to use that Forbes article to trump any notion that there are new Angels. The models are calling themselves Angels and that chart posted above is telling. talk ← 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna go out a limb and say we add Ellingson as well. I'll leav her as past Angel for the time being due to her uncredited status, but obviously Supermodel=Angel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or have the numerous IPs editing this page become incapable of discussion or even edit summaries? talk ← 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I kinda gave up to understand who is a real angel and who's not. As for Ellingson, I wouldn't add her name because an angel-contract last at least for 3 years and she was barely 1 year in demand as a "supermodel". However, maybe VS is changing its contracts, including the duration and the worth which why they can suddenly afford so many models at the same time. Like I said - I kinda gave up to understand that whole "angel/supermodel/bombshell"-system.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree on Ellingson. And I think at this point it's not what we individually think or believe to be the case for the other models' Angel status. Enough sources (including VS sites) have called these models Angels that it's verifiable for the purposes of Wiki-truth. 13:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've never quite bought into the 3-year thing, hardly any of the models had a 3-year, 6-year, 9-year or 12-year longevity and even if it is true, nothing stops VS from terminating a contract. That put aside, throughout the 2010 year (up until Aldridge's rise to Angel-dom actually), Ellingson was put on the very same level as the rest. Just like the rest she got multiple "Angel profiles", just like the rest she was featured in the promotional Canada videos, she got some catalog covers and so on and so forth. If the models were Angels then, then so was she. As far as the Fashionista source goes, it does state "pre-Angeldom" in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Ellingson followed the exact same pattern as the rest: commercial (Christmas for Ellingson, Huntington & Swanepoel, Nakeds for Iman and Heatherton, Biofit for Aldridge), followed by Angel profile on facebook, followed by addition on VSAA. She was also photographed amongst the current and ex-Angels and PINK Girls present at this year's VSFS pre-show event. Conversely, none of those criteria are met by other spokesmodels (i.e. Niaria, Decker, Mariano, Carvahlo & Sosa) except for De Paula who only meets one (the profile, which was promptly rectified as "new face"). While she probably isn't an Angel now, Ellingson clearly was one earlier this year.18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I do believe in the 3-year contract thing since KK, Selita and Izabel and Marisa all left after 3 years - I don't think it's a coincidence that all left after 3 years. On another note: Why is Chanel an Angel? She's not even 21! Well, I guess VS contradicts itself again... like for the 200th times?? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- All this proves is that those 4 models held an Angel contract for about 3 years, not that the contract lasts that long. I still think that Ellingson can't be just an exception on the Supermodel list. Out of curiousity, where did you read/hear about the 21-year-old rule? Casta, Lima, Bundchen & Prinsloo weren't when signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
When Casta, Lima and Bundchen got signed, it was a totally different time. Rules have changed! - just like the age for models to walk the show. Back then, KK walked her first show with 16, but now (because of CBS rules) VS can only let models walk the show that are at least 18. That's why Chanel said she couldn't walk the 2008-show because she was still 17 by that time. As for Prinsloo - when she got signed in 2008, she got signed to become the PINK-spokesmodel and not an Angel. I still doubt that she was made an Angel this year along with the other bunch of girls, but at least it fits "my theory" - now she's 21, but Chanel isn't. That's why I'm still suspicious that six (!) girls became Angels in one year (??). But like I said - VS has become unreasonable and therefore some kind of a joke to me... or rules just have changed again.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have edited the table so that the columns are all sortable and formatted the names so they sort by last name and added country names so they too are sortable. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed Lindsay Ellingson from the Angels-list. I mean, seriously?? She was credited in 2009, and was given the boot in 2010 and now in 2011 she's in again? As we know by now, it's tougher to separate the true angels from the so-called angels than any case Agatha Christie has ever written but I don't think an angel-contract works like "2009 you're in, 2010 not, and 2011 you're in again"--VSfan88 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not about what you think, though. The points is, VS's facebook put up the pics of Lily and Lindsay listed as Angels, they are called Angels here as well. The current policy is that if VS says their Angels, then they are (aside from the generic "runway angels"). And either way, if she was credited in 2009, and was given the boot in 2010", that means she was an Angel. So 2010, or 2011 she's been an Angel at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If she was an Angel at some point why is she listed as one of the current Angels? Besides that, Arlenis Sosa was booked for one VS campaign, but then her footage (alongside Alessandra's) was not used for the commercial, but before the commercial was released she was previewed on VS facebook-page as the new Angel. Does that mean she was also "an Angel at some point" and should be included in the list? And besides that, Heidi and Marisa are still listed among the 13 models on the vsallaccess-page. Does that also mean they're still Angels??--VSfan88 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is Arlenis a featured model on VS All Access? Did she get multiple Angel/Supermodel profiles on facebook? Was she featured in many Angels videos? Did Arlenis have the 4th highest VS cover count last year? Was Arlenis featured on the center of GQ's "VS special"? Apples and oranges. VS has referred to Lindsay as an Angel multiple times, so have various media outlets. Adriana Lima didn't do much for VS in 2000-2001 yet we have her listed as an Angel, when she wans't even in the credits of the 2001 show. Is every single model listed on VS All Access's Supermodel was/is an Angel except for Lindsay? It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If you argue with how many times Lindsay was booked by VS, does that mean Oluchi Onweagba is also an Angel? I mean, she was also booked multiple times, been in a VS x-mas commercial and did promotion for VS lookbook besides Heidi, Adriana and Gisele (who are/were well-known Angels). I'm suspicious in the case of Lindsay Ellingson because she was credited in the 2009-show and then she had to go to the regular castings for the 2010-show which is not necessary if you were a contracted Angel (on top of that she wasn't credited for the 2010-show) and now she's mysteriously back on the heights of being an Angel? But pardon me, I totally forgot that everything is accepted as true as long an official website says so without using one's common sense to see if the info sounds right. That's why there was a time when the wiki-page said that Emanuela, Chanel, Candice, Rosie and Lindsay are the 5 new Angels because VS facebook-page claimed so and then that info was deleted because VS facebook-page suddenly change it to 5 new faces and not "5 new Angels".--VSfan88 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Onweagba sure wasn't and Angel but I don't remember VS itself repeatedly hailing her as one. I know Ellingson wasn't credited in 2010, which means that at the time of the runway show, she wasn't an Angel, hence why she had been removed (then again Prinsloo got a "special credit" in '09 despite being called an Angel, so yeah...). However, Ellingson is being used a lot more right now and VS has yet to retract the Lindsay/Angel reference (which makes it different from the New Angels/New Faces debacle). I mean, they removed some of the pics and left just Aldridge and Ellingson. If Ellingson wasn't an Angel, then why keep her and remove the rest? We spent much of last year going back and forth about Prinsloo, Swanepoel, Huntington, Heatherton and Iman and it turned out they were all Angels... I offer we keep her until the next retraction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Last year Prinsloo, Swanepoel, Huntington, Heatherton and Iman weren't thought to be Angels because Forbes.com said Doutzen Kroes was the last model that became an Angel and over fashionspot.com (which is known for having members with connnections to fashion people) the ppl still claim that Ale, Adriana, Miranda and Doutzen are the only models with the true Angel-contract. Well, it's not that serious to me anyway. If the Wiki-page says Ellingson is an Angel because VS official-whatnot-sites say so, then it's not Wiki's, but VS's false for spreading confusing information for about 2 years by now.--VSfan88 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- She's just been announced as having a solo Angel event. So this settles that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A user added Dutta to the list of Angels but I've removed the claim because of how dubious it is. That I can see, the information is totally based on Dutta telling the Indian press she's an Angel. Quite frankly, that means little. Any celebrity can make such a claim and expect the press to repeat it, especially when the (foreign) press consistently doesn't seem to know what an "Angel" is. Is Dutta listed as a contracted model on the VS All Access page? Has she ever shot for VS? Has the American media get in on the story? That I can tell, no. Even the Indian FHM piece questioned the claim as a hoax and Dutta backtracked and could only say she's contracted to VS but that it's a secret. That's a threadbare claim, and stronger arguments than that haven't got models on this list. Until she does something as an Angel to back up her initial claims, she doesn't belong listed as one. talk ← 16:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
She hasn't worked with the brand for a yea (aside from the 2010 show, obviously) and she is not listed in this year's press release, should we finally go ahead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I read several articles about her that refers to her as a former Victoria's secret model but there are still some articles that refers to her as "Victoria's secret angel". I think it's safer to wait for this year's fashion show and see if she will be included in the Angels intro unless you got a source that is mainly and trustworthy about her departure from VS. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Some missing element
Parking Suspicious Content
Parking - Many fashion historians believe...
- Reason(s) for Parking
- (1) off topic content & (2) possible vandalism
- Posted by
- 184.108.40.206 on 28 September 2012
- Many fashion historians believe there to be a connection between the Victorian era and the clothing and lingerie of Victoria's Secret. Fashion specialists seem to think that a connection between the shape of a woman's body and fashion trends and designs throughout the years have influenced the creation of Victoria's Secret lingerie. The corset was the form of women's fashion that first influenced the "scandalous and sexy" lingerie that is now sold worldwide to hundreds of millions of customers. 
- great. looks useful. Thank you for sharing Corporate. Looks like we edit similar spaces. Hope we can work together. WestportWiki (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Significant copy edit required
This article has numerous problems. The lead section "generally doesn't contain citations" unless the facts are controversial, and 8 citations for a single fact is excessive. One citation is adequate, unless the fact is controversial, when another citation from a reputable source may be appropriate. The lead doesn't adequately summarize the entire article.
The article contains too many subheads, making the body very choppy, as in the section 1983–1990: Expansion into malls, which is composed of 8 paragraphs and 12 sentences, and other sub-sections in the History section. This is an encyclopedia article and it doesn't need to capture the company's entire history. The history section could be substantially improved if only the notable facts about the company's history were retained. There are other facts that aren't as presented particularly notable, like the Music CDs. Either this and other sections like it need more exposition to explain what's notable about them, or they just ought to be removed.
The article is very choppy. All of the information about its subsidiary Pink (Current Pink products, Pink spokesmodels,) ought to be consolidated into a single section devoted to that business. The section on Executives doesn't need three subsections for each subsidiary, which doesn't appear to be complete, as the leadership of Pink is not listed. The Corporate Affairs section is chronologically confusing. Just list the name changes and owners in order. The language is often cryptic and note-like. The sections on Controversies and Criticism either ought to be expanded or removed to the talk page until someone has time to do that work.
The company's marketing practices have generated ongoing controversy, including their use of teen heart-throb Justin Bieber "on the stage as models wearing the colorful Pink line cotton panties and bras strutted across the stage," obvious retouching models photos, Karlie Kloss wearing an racially-insensitive Indian headdress on stage, their use of black models, their use of mannequins in store windows, and so forth.
The article includes citations using naked URLs that need to be cleaned up. There's lots more that could be done, but these steps would be a good start. For more help, refer to fixing the body. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Overlinking also refers to linking to unrelated articles. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
How many stores, again?
I've added a [contradiction] tag over this.
There were, apparently, 4 stories in 1982; but immediately before the sale there were either 3 stores or 6 stores, depending which article you read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
2014 - archiving of TP
i propose we set up auto-archiving for this talk page. Anyone object? Concur? Thoughts on parameters for misza bot (sp?)? How many threads should we leave here current? all hose not active in last 30 or 60 days or more still or less or?? Thanks! Azx2 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Workman, Nancy. "From Victorian to Victoria's Secret: The Foundations of Modern Erotic Wear". Journal of Popular Culture; Fall96, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p61-73, 13p. Retrieved 28 September 2012.