From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Supermodel definition[edit]

My initial feeling on reading this article is that it plays loose and fast with the term "supermodel." Mainly, it seems as if one important, arguably defining distinction of "supermodel" has been neglected here: The model who's also a household name.

It seems as if this article confuses "working model" with "supermodel," as commercial appearances, and even a memorable and lengthy tenure on the runway, do not a supermodel make. The concept has always transcended the fashion and marketing industries, so a model well-known in the industry hasn't necessarily earned the right to be called a "supermodel."

I'm in favor of elucidating this a bit more with some (more intelligible) form of the statement: "However, the elite models who are given the appellation of 'supermodel' often share similar traits. Among those is that their names are popularly and internationally known outside of the fashion and media industries." Just a suggestion.

Here's some evidence to support a change like this: Dickinson's use of the term was not strictly in reference to the amount of work that she was doing, but the profile of that work. (That is, she was a spokesperson for Revlon, not merely appearing in her commercials.) Dickinson interview

Heidi Klum: "'Supermodel' means you're a household name as a fashion model." Excerpt from Jon Bowe's "GIG"

Tyra Banks: "A supermodel is a chameleon. She can change with the times and with the fashions, but at the same time has branded herself to be a household name, which is very rare ... if you can do a survey across America asking if they know this woman's name and they do, that's a supermodel. Someone like Cindy Crawford or Claudia Schiffer." Tyra Banks interview at

I should point out that the existing statement in the article, "Supermodels often parlay their celebrity into product endorsement deals and acting careers," is in keeping with this definition: They have a personal brand strong enough to support both of these roles.

My thought is that the current definition, "highly-paid elite fashion model who usually has a worldwide reputation and often a background in haute couture and commercial modeling" is pretty spot on. I think your comments blur the distinction between "supermodel" and "celebrity". Paris Hilton and Heidi Klum are both celebrities, but neither is a Supermodel because neither has the high fashion or editorial background necessary to qualify. It's no surprise that Klum (not a Supermodel) and Banks (a frequent baseline for arguments about Supermodel status) would be pushing this "if people know your name you are a Supermodel" nonsense.Bogan444 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? I suppose you could also make an argument for this being the old definition of supermodel. --Csaunders4z 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The media and the fashion industry have different views on who should be called a "supermodel". Media tends to use it more loosely and without regard. However, it is not the same with the fashion industry. I was hoping the two views can be elaborated. (Number1spygirl 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)).

Wikipedia lists four different people as being the "first supermodel." We have Janice Dickinson's claims, Gia Carangi, this article's reference to Lisa Fonssagrives and another reference to Dorian Leigh in a footnote on the Carangi page. This article should lay out the case for the most likely candidate and each of the other pages should be edited to conform to this page. GregE625 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between a model and a super model is a model is when a supermodel is in a magazine the article is about her. When a model appears in a magazine the article is about what the model is wearing. Yes there are articles about a supermodels clothes but it is about HER clothes rather than a actually being about the clothes.Drewder (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to take issue with the whole term. There is no valid reason for calling a model a 'supermodel'. They are models! There are models with varying degree of success, but that is the same with any other profession. You never hear the term 'superactor' or 'superdancer', or 'superlawyer', even if there ARE articles in magazines or papers about particular people. Let's just get back to calling them what they are and not put any artificial titles on them. Iggyc61 (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming supermodels[edit]

This section should go. This section is there to make "predictions" (how do we know who is and who will not be a "supermodel"?) and is akin to an "Upcoming superstars" category on a page about celebrity. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and one could make the argument it is a vanity section. I'll wait a few days before removing it. --DavidShankBone 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


In the origins of the term, shouldn't something be said about Janice Dickinson's claim that she coined the term when talking to her booker in (I think it was) France? KyrieSanctus 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already there in the second paragraph of the "Origins..." mirageinred 00:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this paragraph should go -- it's pretty clear that she did not invent or even popularize the term. In which case her claim is not germane to the point; and the piece says more about her than it does about the term supermodel. Therefore it should be cut out and placed in Ms. Dickinson's entry (if she has one).Cross Reference 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she has an article here on Wikipedia. I mean, of course. And, no, I don't feel that the mention of her claiming to have invented the term should be taken out. It's not saying that she invented it, but only that she claims to have. And I feel that her claim is notable, seeing as some people in the modeling industry don't even try to refute that claim of hers and she says that particular claim often. Flyer22 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


April 3rd 2007.

This topic needs more information about international supermodels. I added the following info, but someone deleted it later on without explaining why? I'd like to know.

Traditionally supermodels have only been popular in North America and Europe but with globalization and increased economic success supermodels are becoming popular in Africa and Asia in countries which have benefitted the most from a bolstered economy.

African Supermodels:

Asian Supermodels

I have re-added the following info:

Supermodels are becoming more popular in countries with bolstered economies. Africa has seen an influx of "home grown supermodels" which includes Kiara Kabukuru from Uganda, Kaone Kario from South Africa, Yasmin Warsame & Kadra Ahmed Omar from Somalia, Liya Kebede from Ethiopia, Ajuma Nasenyana from Kenya, Venantia Otto from Namibia, Agbani Darego, Nnnena, Oluchi Onweagba, Dolapo Olorunisola & Caroline Chikezie from Nigeria.


  • You really water down the charge of racism by jumping to such conclusions and spouting them off half-cocked. People who do that damage the anti-racism movement by casually throwing around that charge. The reason is in the edit summary found here with the revert. You have created a bunch of articles that are not sourced, and will be speedily deleted not because of racism, but because you provide no sources backing up your claims that these are supermodels, and notable supermodels at that. You haven't formatted any of the articles to Wikipedia standards. Look at some biography articles and you can see how they are done. Then, you also didn't format this information to look like it even belonged in this article. There are no sources or citations - why are we to believe you? All of these reasons are why I reverted your addition. --David Shankbone 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed Cathee Dahmen from Supermodels of the 1940's Cathee Dahmen worked in the late 1960.s Cathee Dahmen, ModlyInLove 10:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)ModlyinLove

Why, then, is she still listed? Heatherfire 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I added History and made sections: first supermodel, supermodel era and decline of supermodel popularity for easy browsing. (Number1spygirl 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

Name inclusion[edit]

This article has an enormous name list of "supermodels". I suggest we should only include names that are noteworthy. e.g. Lisa Fonssagrives, the world's first supermodel. (Number1spygirl 12:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)).

I edited the 2000's slightly. You had lumped Gisele in with much younger Brazilian models who came after her and implied Gisele was made famous by Victoria Secret, which is simply incorrect. The signing of Gisele was a huge event because it marked the first time the relatively downmarket VS had contracted a Supermodel. Gisele's contract was huge, and it represented a big risk for VS. But it proved to be a great success. After Gisele, being a VS model became something of a status symbol. So it was Gisele that made being a VS model something of importance, not the other way around.Bogan444 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Supermodels vs celebrities[edit]

I feel that many of the names listed are merely celebrities and fame is not a sole indicator of a supermodel. It is indeed a part of it; supermodels are well known. However, I feel the quality of the work the model is doing should be considered before she is included on this list. A supermodel should be doing high profile work, for high profile designers as well as possibly a variety of other enterprises. I do not think that Victoria's secret models should really count as supermodels if that is all they are noted for, as this is clearly not high fashion and high street labels, whether they do a runway show or not, should not really be included as employing "supermodels". Feel free to contest this point but if you look at the work completed by Kate Moss, and compare it to, say, Tyra Banks, it is clear who the more successful model is, and who is a celebrity. Bingosaurus 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But it should also be noted that doing many high fashion works does not also qualify someone as supermodel. An example would be Daria Werbowy, Vlada Roslyakova, etc. The references have stated that attaining celebrity status is an important factor of attaining the title "supermodel". (Number1spygirl 06:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree, however the first sentence of the article is "A supermodel is a highly-paid elite fashion model who usually has a worldwide reputation and often a background in haute couture and commercial modeling." My point is that a supermodel should be primarily as a model and should be highly paid in this particular enterprise, as opposed to other projects. For example, most would identify Kate Moss or Giselle Bundchen as a model, but not Tyra Banks.Bingosaurus 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tyra Banks was primarily a model pre-talk show days. Where do you think the Campbell-Banks feud comes from? Number1spygirl 12:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The question is whether her body of work rose to the level of Supermodel. Becoming famous is an important part of being a Supermodel, but all the true Supermodels became famous because of their work as models, not the other way around. Banks is a tricky example. I personally don't consider her a Supermodel, but at least understand where the argument could be made because she does have some high fashion and editorial experince. A better example of the point would probably be somebody like Heidi Klum, who is widely known for her celebrity, and used to be a model of sorts (underwear and swimsuits mostly), but clearly isn't a Supermodel.Bogan444 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Supermodels of the new millennium and the increase of Brazilian models[edit]

Sections removed. These are sections that discuss about "looks of the moment" not about evolution of the word supermodel. Just because someone has that "look" doesn't make them a supermodel. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Number1spygirl 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So can an unattractive person sue a modeling agency for not hiring them?[edit]

Can an unattractive person sue a modeling agency for not hiring them because they are unattractive? How can modeling agencies discriminate with respect to facial bone structure and yet they cannot discriminate with respect to skin color? Both skin color and facial bone structure are two traits that people are born with. Whenever a fashion designer says he wants this beautiful person to wear his clothing but not this unattractive person he is discriminating because he thinks that if the unattractive person models the clothing that no one will like his fashion design. How can he do this without being sued? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer that, go back to Aristotle who answered "Why do men pursue pretty women?" with "It's a question a blind man can certainly ask."

Simple Darwinism too. Those who use less attractive models do worse than those who don't, so anyone who wants to survive is pretty much forced to use attractive models. The ugly can sue all they want, but anyone with common sense won't take the case.

It's also worth considering the possibility of a fugly woman excelling at sport. You don't really think anyone would bother to show up at the games, right? Ugly people can do what they want, but they can't force people to watch them, and advertising is all about getting people to watch. Case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Male supermodels[edit]

Can any male model be said to have "worldwide recognition"? Every female supermodel in the article is a household name. The Male Supermodels section, as currently written, add nothing to this article. I'm recommending we delete it. Thoughts? Darkspots (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"First supermodel"?[edit]

How can Lisa Fonssagrives be the "first supermodel" when the term did not even exist back then? I don't think we can. For the same reason we cannot label Achilles or Genghis Khan "war criminals", because the term refers to the modern era. We cannot label an individual investigator from the 17th century as a "private eye" because the term refers to a profession specifically of the 20th century and beyond. And so on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

She's probably labeled the first supermodel just as Doug Williams and Julie Olson are labeled the first supercouple (not just first soap opera supercouple), even though the term did not exist until Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. Doug and Julie most likely get that title because of how they were the first soap opera couple to grace the cover of TIME magazine and how there was so much mania surrounding them. Basically, a supercouple without the title of being called that then. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Although Janice Dickinson claims to have "invented" the term in 1979, American Vogue used the term "supermodel" on the cover page to describe Margaux Hemingway on the September 1, 1975 edition. This can be seen clearly on the cover I found at eBay.Co.UK and in the Vogue archives.

Just giving a litle more evidence that Dickinson did not coin the term - at least not in 1979, anyway. ExRat (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be good to incorporate into the section of the term's origin in this article, of course. Thanks for the information, ExRat. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The only person who supports Janice Dickinson's claim of being the first supermodel (and coiner of the term) is Janice Dickinson. Simply put, her claims do not meet the burden of proof for inclusion. There isn't really debate (at least, no serious debate) over her claim. In fact, there are many sources contradicting her claim. If some random model, say Christy Turlington, claimed to be the first supermodel, would we suddenly insert some text into the article detailing that assertion? The answer is, of course, no. If all one had to do in order to be included in an article was cry wolf, then Wikipedia would be a crowded and unreliable place. Claims have to meet the burden of proof. They must be evidenced per Wiki policy. Since Janice's claims have no evidentiary support, they should be left out of the article or, at the very minimum, should be accompanied by phrasing that indicates they are unsubstantiated. Janice happens to be the loudest person claiming to be the first supermodel, but that doesn't mean she actually was the first one. ask123 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Her claim that she is the first supermodel is notable; it is a well-known claim, and has defined her career as much as anything else. All we need is her claiming that she is the first supermodel, with a valid reference showing that she has done so (no matter how familiar we are with this claim), then present evidence that disputes her claim. That is what that section in this article is doing. That is how many "issues" like this go, not just on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it has defined her career, and, thus it is notable to her (and to the article, Janice Dickinson). It has much less relevance to the larger world of supermodels and "supermodelling." Also, a claim must meet the burden of evidence for inclusion, not be included and then removed only if there is a contradicting source. Dickinson's is a claim without evidence, as opposed to, say, the Salisbury Daily Times referring to Twiggy as a supermodel, which is actually the evidence itself. There are lots of people who claim lots of things. All of these instances are not included in Wikipedia articles unless they meet the burden of evidence or are relevant for another reason. If George W. Bush says that Pensacola is the capital of Spain, should the Wikipedia article, Spain, now state that George W. Bush has claimed that Pensacola is the Spanish capital (with a citation from, say, The New York Times showing that he said it)? Should that be included and followed by another statement indicating that others have said, however, it's Madrid? Of course not - Bush's comment should be left out entirely.
In this particular case, though one might argue that Dickinson's claim has gotten around, so to speak, and has thereby become notable. If that's the case, then, yes, state the claim with a source showing that she said it. But be proportional in how much space you give it and state all the relevant facts. In contrast, as it stands now, the section in question is written almost around the Dickinson claim. There is more text devoted to her claim in that section than to any other. Yet, her claim is the dubious of the bunch. The others have evidentiary support. Consequently, her claim deserves perhaps one sentence, or maybe none at all. And that's only if one accepts that her evidence-less claim is notable to this particular article (not any another article like, say, Janice Dickinson).ask123 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page, it is quite clear that Dickinson has engrained the first supermodel claim enough into society's psyche that she is often referred to or introduced as the self-described first supermodel, sometimes simply being called the world's first supermodel:
Janice Dickinson Defends Hewitt In A Bikini As Healthy: "Tyra Banks Is Fat"
Janice Dickinson: the self-proclaimed first supermodel
Bulletin: Janice Dickinson Looks Hot!
Janice Dickinson
Let's not forget how her being a judge on America's Next Top Model helped this claim. Often, when people think of the world's first supermodel, Dickinson's claim comes to mind. She has created enough of a debate with it. So I would not say that there is entirely no debate about it. When presented with sources, like the Supermodel aricle does about this issue, however, it is easy to see how disputed her claim is, and I do not feel that the word erroneous helps to point this out any more than the way that section does already; all the word erroneous does is make it seem like a person is knocking the reader over the head with a bat even more than that section already is, asking "You see? You see?" I mean, yes, the person sees that her claim is significantly disputed. To suggest that readers need an added bonus of the word erroneous to grasp that fact is insulting to the readers.
In any case, that addition about Dickinson's claim is clearly notable enough for inclusion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I got your message, but you haven't gotten mine. This isn't about the word "erroneous." It's about the ideas here. As I said, I'm all about subtelty too, as long as the article is clear. This article is not. The section in question devotes more space to Dickinson's claim than to any other. In fact, the text is practically written around the Dickinson claim. I agree that we don't want to insult readers, of course not -- we're not here to tell them how to think - that's a given, Expository Writing 101, knowledge anyone who's picked up a book has. But we are here to present clearly and in a proportional manner material that's backed up by reliable sources. There is no proportionality here. Dickinson's claim should have one terse sentence if it's included at all, not four verbose ones. The Dickinson claim is the side note, rather than the current version's take, in which the other claims -- those backed by evidence -- are presented as tangential Dickinson's claim is the main attraction.
As I said on your talk page before, the only debate over the Dickinson claim is St. Janice somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy. There is no debate among those informed on the subject. As with any matter, those who are uninformed may debate to the cows come home - they don't know enough about the topic to have an informed argument. But that is not what we are talking about. We're talking about debate among those in the know. And among those in the know, there is no debate. Dickinson's claim is refuted and the evidence backs that up. Also, her show does far less than you claim to promote a debate on this topic. We're talking about a worldwide issue, and her American syndie TV show has done little to give her claim creedence on the international stage. You're presenting a purely American point of view, and, as you know, Wikipedia speaks to a global audience.
ask123 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You haven't gotten my message either, apparently. As I stated on your talk page, I see that part of the article as quite clear. And I did not state that "her American syndie" has given "her claim creedence on the international stage". I stated that her claim is notable, and Dickinson has engrained the first supermodel claim enough into society's psyche that she is often referred to or introduced as the self-described first supermodel, sometimes simply being called the world's first supermodel. I do not care if you reduce that to simply being the American audience. And I am not the one harping on one word. You are the one who so badly wanted the word erroneous in there, as if it would actually improve that section. And now you're saying that it's about ideas? Whatever. In any case, I'm done with this discussion or whatever the hell it was/is. I see nothing wrong with that section, and am for it staying how it is. You want it miminized as though it should be. Take it to RfC if you feel that strongly about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And as for Wikipedia being about a global audience, it is also quite clear that in the English Wikipedia, this one, you will mostly see American-associated or related topics. Just as in the other versions of Wikipedia, the American view is not as prominent. For some topics specifically here on the English Wikipedia, it is mainly the American view that can be represented because a topic or subject is not that well-known in other countries. Whether or not Dickinson is the first supermodel is much more interesting to the American audience than any other, anyway. But oh well. As stated before, I'm done with this discussion or whatever it was/is. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you keep bring up the word "erroneous" - as if I care about that term or not. C'mon, man, I placed the word in once or twice, and that was after it was already there and I saw it get deleted. So just get over it already. The redundancy is starting to ring in my ears.
Yes, English Wikipedia contains mostly American-associated topics, a point that has nothing to do with the fact that it is supposed to have a worldwide view of the subjects it covers. And just because something is "interesting" to American readers, does not make it notable or worthy of more space. There are a lot of "interesting" points that are left out of Wikipedia because that alone isn't enough for inclusion or expansion.
As I said on my talk page, I can see where you're coming from if you use an exteremely loose interpretation of the concept of "notability," but, again, that just opens up the door for anyone to say, "Hey, I was the first supermodel," and suddenly be notable. Under your rationale, simply saying that enough times makes you notable enough not just to get into the Supermodel article but also to take up a pivotal position in the section on origination. As I said before, even taking a loose interpretation of notability, her claim is still worth only a sentence or two at most - it's just a tangential note. I doubt a fashion historian would devote as much space to Dickinson's claim as you have.
Lastly, as I mentioned before to you: Assume good faith, AGF, AGF, AGF! Throughout this whole discussion on this page and my talk page, you've been a live-wire with a major attitude. You need to pipe down and stop trying so hard to infantalize. A little good faith goes a long way... ask123 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you! It's that damn simple. As I sated on your talk page, I see you with the attitude, and the one acting like a child, with your silly insults. Including Dickinson's claim in the Supermodel article does not open "up the door for anyone to say, 'Hey, I was the first supermodel,' and suddenly be notable." It is not about simply saying something enough times and becoming notable enough to get into the Supermodel article or taking "up a pivotal position in the section on origination." I disagree with you. No, we will not be at this for weeks, because I am done with you; it's that damn simple.
You make it out as though I am unaware that the Supermodel article needs work. I did not write it. I just keep crap out of it. You see Dickinson's claim being in the article as crap; that is your opinion. This whole thing started with your need to put erroneous in that section beside Dickinson's claim, and now you've made it about something else. I don't see how there can be any surprise that one would be a little "what?" at your sudden change in direction. I have stated that I disagree with you. You clearly disagree with me. You say that, yes, the English Wikipedia contains mostly American-associated topics, a point that has nothing to do with the fact that it is supposed to have a worldwide view of the subjects it covers. I said that a subject being mostly American-related does not often lend it room to contain enough views on the subject from other countries. I did not say that just because something is "interesting" to American readers, it makes it notable or worthy of more space. I told you to take it to RfC if you feel so strongly about it because that is the next logical step. Not to give you an attitude. Done is done. Or at least I hope it is in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Woa, woa, woa! That's fine that you disagree with me. But you keep coming back with these aggressive posts. Please just pipe down for God's sake... ask123 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I am calm. But whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Supermodel (mathematics)[edit]

"Supermodel" is a term used by mathematicians and the like when modeling a particular problem, meaning a model that is composed of several models to solve a particular problem.

Looks like this deserves a whole other page. (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It really doesn't belong here, except as a "See also" or some such. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Section may need a rewrite or removed[edit]

This section of the article does not sound right to me, it sounds like a magazine POV piece, i think it needs to be removed.

The current generation of supermodels

As 2007, ten years after the official decline of the supermodel, many people felt it was time for the supermodel to make a comeback. In the May 2007 issue of American Vogue it featured on the cover ten of today's top models, these models were Sasha Pivovarova, Doutzen Kroes, Caroline Trentini, Raquel Zimmermann, Isabeli Fontana, Jessica Stam, Agyness Deyn, Coco Rocha, Hilary Rhoda, Chanel Iman, and Lily Donaldson. These girls have graced the cover of such fashion magazine as Elle, Numéro, and the many international publications of Vogue, and are currently living up to the public eye's expectation of what a supermodel does, by replacing actresses, and singers as the faces of such high fashion brands such as Dolce & Gabbana, DKNY, Chanel, Versace and Yves Saint Laurent.

Anyone agree? Pro66 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, delete it. No question. ask123 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Needs deleting. I'm off to do that now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Too American-centred[edit]

Perhaps indian, oriental and other supermodels can be given their place aswell. Li Gong, N'Bushe Wright, Tamara Mello, Freida Pinto, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern supermodels?[edit]

This is naturally a controversial topic for the article, since by many accounts there are no current "supermodels" (perhaps minus Gisele), but by others the supermodels are making, or have made, a comeback. Currently, the article pays no attention to this and sections on it have been removed as per this talk page in the past, and while I think everyone can agree that we don't want some arbitrary list of who is one nowadays (if any), I think it would be warranted to at least put up for debate here the idea that perhaps a paragraph could be worked out to acknowledge in the article that some outlets have dubbed certain current models as "supermodels." Without any mention at all, for example, it makes little sense to have a pic of Gisele as the article's lead photo when the article doesn't address the issue she is nearly symbolic of and when the issue has been brought up in news/media outlets. Anyone want to chime in? Personally, I support the re-inclusion of the Vogue cover with the "new crop" and perhaps something relating to the VS Angels.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the problem now in the article is the lack of the 2000-2009 decade. If there are no supermodels anymore certainly we can recognize some top-models in the last years. How? We can find some guidelines in the following items:

  • The annual Top 15 World earning models, by Forbes magazine
  • Victoria´s Secret angels models
  • Covers in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
  • Major Vogue covers

...and we get some names: Gisele Bundchen (course.), Carolyn Murphy, Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrósio, Natalia Vodianova, Karolina Kurkova, Daria Werbowy, Gemma Ward, Liya Kebede, Hilary Rhoda, Shalom Harlow, Doutzen Kroes, Jessica Stam, Miranda Kerr, Isabeli Fontana, Selita Ebanks, Valentina Zelyaeva, Daniela Pestova, Yamila Diaz, Veronica Vařeková, Rebecca Romijn and ... Marisa Miller.

I also support the re-inclusion of the Vogue cover and facts regarding the Victoria´s Secret Fashion Show, as an important media event for the models in this decade.  Vanthorn msg ← 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What Vogue cover are you two talking about?
As for modern supermodels, as we know, we already have a section titled Late 1990s to 2000s. Any model dubbed a supermodel in the 2000s can be placed there (Gisele, for example). I am not for having a section about various popular models who have not been dubbed supermodels. I mean, in that case, just about any popular model would need to be allowed a mention in this article. Also, just because some valid sources have randomly named some recent models as supermodels does not mean that the supermodel era/or rather term is making a comeback. Thus, if we do include a section about current models who have been named supermodels, we should not state that the term is making a comeback (unless a valid source says so). I am really not feeling a new section either way, though, unless that section is well-developed. Otherwise, information on current models who have been dubbed supermodels can be placed in the Late 1990s to 2000s section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
These types of concerns are exactly why I bring this up. I wouldn't want an arbitrary list of today's latest popular models here or to assert the supermodel is making a comeback because some Kentucky county newspaper said so. I would just prefer a few added sentences on the notable instances of more current models being dubbed "supermodels" - i.e., Claudia Schiffer suggesting Gisele Bundchen is the only current one, the May 2007 American Vogue article/cover stating Kroes, Trentini, Zimmerman, etc, were among "the new crop of supermodels," and something relating to the VS Angels. This way, personal opinion and non-notable instances are rejected. I would also suggest rejecting any user-created qualifications, such as having such-and-such number of Vogue covers being the threshold. It's not up to us to define it like that. We would just include the notably-dubbed examples - and be strict as hell about it.
SI Swimsuit covermodels also probably deserve mention, being widely-accepted as (at least in the past) a supermodel-creating achievement.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I get what you are saying and I have no problem with it. And, LOL, about the Kentucky county newspaper comment. I immediately thought about Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). I am a vegetarian, though.
If Gisele is not currently mentioned in this article, she should be. I know that she was previously noted in this article. Heidi Klum should also be noted in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about KFC almost makes me want to go vegetarian. On another note... damn, legit sourcing for this stuff isn't easy to find.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wiki-fellows!
Vanthorn and I have translated this article to Portuguese Wikipedia, and I added a provocative section, The latest supermodel?. See below:
In the first decade of the 21st century, the celebrities of Hollywood came back to reoccupy the space lost to the supermodels in the previous decades. As to Claudia Schiffer stated, "supermodels like we once were don't exist any more" [1]. Schiffer, however, cited an exception, Gisele Bündchen, as the only person "who comes close to earning the supermodel title"[2]. The highest-paid model in the world according to Guinness, with a fortune in 2007 valued at USD $ 70 million by Forbes magazine[3] (and now has been estimated to be over USD $ 150 million[4]), having been elected in 1999 as the VH1/Vogue Model of the Year[5], Gisele has moved to occupy a class above the other top models and was named "übermodel" ("bigger than supermodel") and "mega-model"[6].
The Independent named Gisele as mega-model, not übermodel, but I think that is the same thing... - Al Lemos (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I like it, and welcome to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanx! If you find the section useful, why not add it to the article? - Al Lemos (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If no one here objects to it in any way, I have no problem with it. A tiny bit of that information is already within the article, and your suggested section puts that and other information in a well-written space. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That´s OK with me.  Vanthorn msg ← 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If I wasn't a big procrastinator, that's something along the lines of what I would have written, although I think the Vogue model of the year thing should be cut, as numerous models have won that - it's not really a part of what sets Gisele apart. And the Chikipedia ref would certainly have to go.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It's easy to change the Chikipedia ref; try this (from AFP). And about Vogue, she's not only a "model of the year"; what about the editorial "The Return of the Sexy Model"? How many new models has made a so big impression? - Al Lemos (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems like you have the go-ahead to add this. If you do not, one of us will probably eventually get around to doing it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this discussion started on 4 May 2009, it´s time to act!  Vanthorn msg ← 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I played around with the new section just now and thought I'd explain a bit. Mainly, I removed the Vogue award thing; the way it was used made it seem like Bundchen's success was caused by this award when the award was simply a byproduct, and as a byproduct it's rather insignificant. I'm also a little iffy now on mentioning her salary earnings. Every year some model is going to be the highest paid in the world. Maybe there's something more remarkable about it - perhaps she's now earned more money than any model ever before? That's the kind of fact that supports her being an "ubermodel" (the translation of which I removed, since its meaning is obvious).  Mbinebri  talk ← 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source or not?[edit]

This source was added to the article by an editor. Often, RSS feeds signal unreliable sources. Thoughts on this? Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reliable source. I've never heard that Naomi Campbell's statement and even doesn't exist on the portuguese version of Bundchen article.  Vanthorn msg ← 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am reverting that part. If Naomi Campbell said it, there should be a better source for that statement. Vanthorn, since you have already talked to the editor who added this, perhaps you would not mind talking to that editor about why we removed it? Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok Flyer, I invited him to this discussion.  Vanthorn msg ← 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to doubt the source (and I recall having read Campbell making these statements elsewhere, although I have no idea where), but I would omit the info anyway. Otherwise, we might as well just rename the section "Why Gisele is the most awesomest thing ever!!!!1"  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah, it would look even more like we are Gisele groupies or something of that nature. Your editing of that section has certainly balanced things out. And though RSS feeds are sometimes unreliable, they are also very reliable in a lot of other cases (as we know, such as when coming from reputable publications). Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Present day[edit]

Although we only discussed this section a couple months ago, I decided to rewrite it based on what I was reading in articles while searching for things to write about the SI Swimsuit Issue, because clearly the current state of supermodels is not so dependent on what Bundchen is doing—in fact, her status as an "uber-model" has been accepted for probably most of the decade already, which makes it kind of old news, as opposed to current news. Other things are happening and I tried to reflect that. The writing isn't superb (because it's a section on what's currently happening, I'm unsure of what tense to use), so tinker if you want. If someone has a link to the Vogue May 2007 story, that would be great if he/she could provide it, as I'd like to see specifically what it said.

I'm also wondering though if the section should even exist per WP:RECENTISM, but I do kind of prefer having it rather than having its content lumped in with the rest of the larger section.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I say good work on making that section less Gisele-centric. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good work Mbinebri, the section is much better now, althought should have more references. I would try to find as possible.  Vanthorn msg ← 01:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


It seems silly to even be bringing this up, but can we agree to limit photos used to those of people discussed in the article? Per WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic. Photos should be reserved for models who unquestionably have earned "supermodel" status, which Bundchen, Brinkley, and Evangelista have, whereas with a model like Adriana Karembeu, it's rather dubious and (at least to me) borderline POV-pushing.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We certainly did/do not need those two images that were added by JJ Georges. As I stated in my edit summary, "Not only [do all these images] make the article look messy, Wikipedia formatting is against sandwiching images together."
I left one of those images in, though. But now that I look back at the article, it seems that JJ Georges especially wants the picture of Adriana Karembeu in this article. So maybe I should have removed the other one -- of Laetitia Casta. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If I had to choose one, I'd prefer keeping the Casta photo, as the more recognized model IMO.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't give a damn about either being or not being a supermodel, or whether or not they are "recognized" as such, whatever that means, or if there is such a thing a certified and universally-accepted supermodel label. It just happens that Ms Karembeu is, at present, one of the most widely-known ("super", "top", whatever) models, at least in several european countries, though perhaps not in North America. Now, I'm not a member of her fan club, nor am I her representative (or Ms Casta's), it's just that at present she happens to be a notably recognizable face, in a significant part of the world, when the "supermodel" business is mentioned. Hence, her photo is relevant to the article and significantly related to its topic. That's all. Putting her picture seems as natural as putting a picture of, say, George Clooney on an "Actors who have appeared in E.R." article. Plus, I don't see how it "clutters" the article, as this is entirely subjective. I'm just trying to make the article more complete in my own modest way, so I'd really appreciate if the effort is not wasted for whatever obscure reasons. I suggest we dont' bring this up anymore, please, thanks. I certainly don't want to start an argument on a subject like Adriana Karembeu (as I said I'm not obsessed in any way about this lady). JJ Georges (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
First off, your initial comment here is alarming. You admit to not caring at all about whether a subject can be defined by what the article is about, which puts the validity of your editing here on shaky ground. And still insisting on keeping this particular photo is very bizarre in light of that. As for the photo, there are dozens of photos of other models that could be included in the article. That does not mean they need to be, and the photo of Karembeu is an example of that. It's just another photo, and yes, it is cluttering the article IMO, as Flyer also thinks. If you disagree, that is your right, but please do not so casually dismiss other editors' opinions like you did an edit summary (Well, you two may agree on whatever you want). That is the polar opposite of being a good Wikipedian and neutral editor. We edit based on consensus here.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
JJ Georges, I am not seeing how it is subjective that having both images in the spot you put them in is cluttering; you yourself had trouble formatting the images in that spot, because they take up so much text space. Unneeded images fall into the cluttering category, especially when they distract from the article's main purpose -- to relay text. Though having some pictures can be argued as important for an article about supermodels, this article's main purpose is not to serve as an image gallery. Some images are okay, yes, but every model mentioned in this article does not need a picture to accommodate their mention. I am sure that you know that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The article's main purpose is not only to "relay text", it is to explain what a subject is, and images help doing just that. I actually did not have any trouble formatting the photos - not that I remember, at least - and IMHO this "cluttering" business is purely subjective. For an article about an "image" business, I find it somewhat lacking in images. If I had REALLY wanted to clutter the article, I'd have added photos of Herzigova AND Bellucci AND Jovovich AND Kate Moss, etc. The subject of that picture seems to me a very good illustration of its subject, plus it also avoids that restrictive "big six" concept; simply put, she IS a supermodel because she is VERY notable, and widely accepted as being one. What I don't give a damn about is who makes up these definitions, or whether or not the "supermodels" should be defined by some official list made up by someone in the fasion industry (?). Maybe she's not that well known in the USA, not that I care about that either. Now, I don't want to spend any more time arguing on this relatively unimportant subject. JJ Georges (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The article's main purpose is to relay text; I was not aware that I had to clarify what "text" means in this case; it should be obvious. Explaining what a subject a natural but not always necessary aspect of relaying text. We explain the term supermodel in the lead of this article because it is needed. Images of every model mentioned is not needed. And if we included every image of every model mentioned, this article would be cluttered with images. That is what I meant. You could have one of the two images, which is what we have done. We do not need both, especially due to the fact that it makes that section look messy and more difficult to read. Yes, you did have trouble formatting those two images in that section; I checked the edit history; I saw how, because they were sandwiched together and created messy-looking text, you could not decide how to allign the two images in that spot. Either way, I have stated all I have to state about this matter. It was not an argument to me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
On a side note: There is no longer a "restrictive 'big six' concept." It was never really a concept anyway; it only referred to the most popular supermodels at the time. Either they were the most popular or they were not. Reliable sources say that they were. There is no concept that says "there can only be six big supermodels." Thus, I do not get what you meant by that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


I think it's clear the article is in need of a little restructuring date-wise, considering it makes little sense to have sections on the 1980s/1990s then 1990s/2000s. These should probably be broken down into three sections by individual decades. Opinions?  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I divided it up myself. Doing so didn't really require any rewriting.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I mentioned that before.  Vanthorn msg ← 03:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gisele nonsense[edit]

There seems to be a strong anti-Gisele POV among some posters that diminishes the credibility of this entry. Gisele can not be lumped in with Alessandra Ambrosio and Adriana Lima. Lima didn't even come to New York until 1999. Gisele came in 1996 and by 1998 was the most popular runway model in the world. Gisele got her first American Vogue cover in July of 1999, when Lima was just getting off the boat. Gisele again graced the cover of American Vogue in November and December of that year and followed it up with the January 2000 cover as well- an unprecedented (in the modern era) three American Vogue covers in a row. She'd have back to back covers again with the May and June of 2000 editions. As of August of 2010, Lima and Ambrosio are still waiting for their first American Vogue cover, which at this point is unlikely to ever happen (Gisele meanwhile, is on her eleventh as of April 2010). In September of 2000, Gisele became the fourth ever model to grace the cover of Rolling Stone, under the headline, "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World". Gisele didn't sign the contract with Victoria's secret until later that month. It caused quite a stir because it represented a huge shift in VS's advertising strategy, marking the first time VS had ever forked over the huge bucks to contract with a Supermodel to front an ad campaign. The Gisele contract and subsequent fashion shows were Victoria's Secret's attempt at raising their profile. Gisele made Victoria's Secret popular, not the other way around. Once Gisele raised the profile of Victoria's Secret, lesser models such as Lima, Ambrosio, and Kurkova became famous too, solely because of their association with the now popular Victoria's Secret. But those models have no claim to be mentioned in the same breath as Gisele. They emerged many years after Gisele and their resumes are insignificant in comparison.Bogan444 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and original research. As far as the source you added, a single person's opinion is not sufficient to support the changes you've made. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no "anti-Gisele" POV here—only the desire to keep the article neutral. I can even agree that the section does fail to separate Bundchen from less accomplished models like Lima and Ambrosio, but this whole "Gisele is today's lone Supermodel" stuff is pure promotional, opinion-as-fact fluff. And your statements on how Bundchen changed VS are grossly incorrect, as the company was already contracting big-name models as Angels and using them in their fashion shows.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have changed it to a less controversial statement. And you are wrong about Victoria's Secret. VS had never contracted a Supermodel to front an advertising campaign before Gisele. Gisele was the first and only Supermodel they ever hired in that capacity. They paid her $5 million dollars a year, which was an unheard of sum for that company and a huge departure from their previous business model. It made big news at the time.Bogan444 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Your "less controversial" statement is exactly what it was before - just reworded a little. And again, you're incorrect about VS and the use of supermodels. Helena Christensen, Stephanie Seymour, Laetitia Casta, Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, etc. all were contracted prior to Bundchen.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No, it is not "reworded". This acknowledges Gisele was the leading model of the eara (an indisputable fact by any metric) while leaving open the question of whether or not there were other supermodels of during the 2000's or whether Gisele was the last and correcting the gross and completely unacceptable error of connecting Gisele Bundchen with a bunch of models who have never even been on a single cover of Vogue. And your VS answer seems to miss my point entirely. None of the women you mention there are Supermodels under the strictest definition of the word. Casta isn't even under a loose definition. Klum never had a fashion career to speak of at all really. When Gisele signed a contract with Victoria's Secret it was a big deal because she was A) a Supermodel, and B) the leading model in the industry. VS had NEVER contracted someone like that before. It would have been like hiring Kate Moss a few years earlier or Claudia Schiffer back in the early 90's. But the problem with the earlier edit was that it implied Gisele somehow owed her fame to Victoria's Secret. While that may indeed be true in the case of Adriana Lima and Alessandra Ambrosio, it is a laughable contention when it comes to Gisele. From July 1999 to June 2000, Gisele was on the cover of America Vogue 6 times! She was on the cover of the world's leading fashion publication for 6 months of an eleven month period. Yet you want to attribute her fame to an underwear contract she signed months after that run? (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I removed the Victoria's Secret reference to Gisele. If you want to mention Victoria's Secret, it would make far more sense to put in in the next sentence which talks about Adriana, Izabel, and Alessandra, all of whom were relative unknowns in the fashion industry prior to signing with VS, and of whom only Izabel really crossed over (with limited success) to the world of high fashion. To say Gisele became especially famous after signing with VS borders on corporate propaganda. It could be just as easily argued VS became "especially" famous after signing Gisele. Moreover, this was the same time she started dating Leo. Which had a greater impact on her popularity- a single contract with a bikini and underwear dealer or retailer or dating the world's most famous actor? I'd argue the latter but neither is really necessary to mention because the reason VS signed Gisele to such a massive contract and the reason she was running in social circles with Leo and friends was because she was ALREADY quite famous by that point.Bogan444 (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
          • There, the first sentence no longer refers to VS.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, I appreciate your effort but I think the draft suffers a bit in terms of proper English construction. "Followed suit" doesn't really fit in the context. Also, linking Gisele with Brazilian models who are ONLY or PRIMARILY known as Victoria's Secret models is a huge mistake. Adrianna, Alessandra, and Izabel have nothing to do with Gisele and their careers aren't even remotely comparable. The Brazilian heirs to Gisele's legacy are people like Raquel Zimmermann and Caroline Trentini, both of whom were elite high fashion runway models who have a massive body of editorial work and have appeared on the covers of Vogue.Bogan444 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think you do appreciate my efforts. Your agenda of severing any link between Gisele and VS and downplaying the careers of other models has been absurdly obvious for awhile now. You feel Gisele is superior and VS is irrelevant to her success; I get it. But trying to compromise to meet your POV on the matter has become too tiresome. The section regarding this—Gisele, Adriana, Alessandra, and VS—now directly reflects the content of the Forbes article used as a ref. Are you going to like it? Obviously not, but as the ref explicitly states: Five years ago, it was the Brazilians, out of which rose Bundchen, Lima and Ambrosio. This new trinity, with their Victoria's Secret contracts, became well known, but with their foreign accents, they were unable to cross over into the world of TV, movies and talk shows as easily as their predecessors did. If you want to continue pushing that VS was not important to Gisele's career and that Adriana or Ale are irrelevant beyond VS, find a source; otherwise the current content is reliably verified.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've explained and sourced the issue at length. I just don't think you have the background and expertise to edit this page. You do realize that Forbes is an american financial magazine? This doesn't make it excusable, but it at least makes it understandable why they would make such a colossal error as linking Gisele to a pair of Brazilian models that didn't even make it to America until AFTER Gisele was the biggest model in the world. Gisele walked with Feranda Tavares. That's the only Brazilian model who is a contemporary of Gisele's. Gisele's most active runway years were 1998 and 1999. Not only did Lima and Ambrosio never achieve the runway fame Gisele (or even Ferndanda) achieved, what little careers they had occurred years later. If you want to have a Brazilian VS "Trinity" it would be Lima, Ambrosio, and Goulart, all of whom rose to fame largely on the shoulders of Victoria's Secret and who are all contemporaries. Gisele did not rise to fame on the shoulders of Victoria's Secret. She was the biggest runway model in the world from 1998-1999. In July of 1999 she got her first American Vogue cover. She would snare the cover again 5 more times in less than a year's time. There was an entire year period where Gisele was on the cover of the most famous fashion magazine in the world 50% of the time. Nothing like that had ever happened in the modern era! At the end of that run, Gisele made the cover of Rolling Stone under the tag line "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World". It was only after that that she signed the huge Victoria's Secret deal (the biggest contract VS had ever paid that to this day hasn't been matched). So yes, the idea that VS is somehow responsible for Gisele's fame in the same way it was for Lima and Ambrosio is flat out absurd. And if you want to compare Gisele to a non-contemporary Brazilian model, then Caroline Trentini or Raquel Zimmermann would be more appropriate. Their careers are at least similar in the broad outlines, though obviously, like everyone else, they never achieved the superstar success Gisele did. I will try to edit the page in a way that incorporates your desire to mention VS and Lima and Ambrosio, but in a way that bears some semblance to reality. Bogan444 (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Your edits have been reverted per WP:V. Please do not change sourced content to favor your POV.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I put in a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogan444 (talkcontribs) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You added a reference and turned the first half of the section into a POV mini-bio of Gisele while once again twisting the claim of the Forbes ref into saying something it's not. I removed the POV and inserted the more relevant info regarding Gisele and her impact on fashion trends per your source. And please stop inserting Izabel Goulart into the "new trinity" claim. The source explicitly says the trinity is Gisele, Adriana, and Alessandra.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Then I think we have to junk that source, as it is clearly wrong (Forbes is a poor source for Fashion information in general) and it is logically inconsistent with other elements of the Supermodel Article. Also, naming Alessandra Ambrosio and Adrianna Lima while not naming Ann Beatriz Barros and Izabel Goulart makes little sense since all are from the same country, rose to prominence at the same time, and all four became famous largely because of Victoria's Secret. I'm sure you can find an article that mentions the four of them, their common Brazilian ancestry, and the role Victora's Secret played in their success to essentially replace the jist of what you wrote and does away with the erroneous Forbes reference that invents a "trinity" no one but that Forbes writer has ever heard of, and worse, implies that Gisele Bundchen hasn't crossed over to the mainstream like the 90's Supermodels, which is utterly ridiculous.Bogan444 (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Forbes is not unreliable because you disagree with it. If Goulart and Barros are not included, then maybe they didn't reach that level as Lima and Ambrosio? That's what I always thought.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
But it is unreliable it if is inconsistent with reality. The quote first invents a never before heard of and never used since reference to a "trinity" that lumps Gisele in with two other models who have nothing in common with her. It then makes the absurd claim that Gisele failed to make the crossover to mainstream media as easily as her "predecessors". Her predecessors, as defined by this very Wikipedia entry include women such as Linda Evangelista and Christy Turlington. What alternate reality are you living in where those two women had greater mainstream media coverage than Gisele? We just had a huge media event in New York last night called Fashion's Night Out that was the largest fashion show in the history of New York City. Nearly every top model that still has a body capable of walking was invited to participate. Of all those women, including Naomi Campbell, it was Gisele that was chosen to open and close the show. A reference that is demonstrably false and full of personal opinion should not be used as a reference. The Eastern European quote suffers similar problems. First, who exactly were these models who were "too young"? What does that even mean? Every model who ever became a Supermodel started modeling in her early teens. And who is the author to say these unnamed women were too "anonymous" or "bordering on anorexic". The former is a simple tautology (every model is anonymous before she isn't) and the latter is ridiculous given the success of Kate Moss and the whole heroin chic era. This is a very lazy article written by a financial writer and meant for an audience of financial news readers. Unless you can demonstrate specific factual proof that the claims have any validity (for example, demonstrate Linda Evangelista got more mainstream magazine coverage, more late night TV appearances, than Gisele- which of course you can't because she didn't) , I'm afraid we can't use it.Bogan444 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In a similar vein, can you find even one reference of Gisele, Adriana, and Ale being referred to as "the trinity" other than a single reference in a 2007 Financial Magazine article? If you are going to insert a nickname in to a encyclopedia article, it should be an actual, accepted nickname. No one ever referred to these girls as "the trinity" before the 2007 article, and no one has done so since. Contrast that with references to Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, and Michael Irvin of the Dallas Cowboys being referred to as "The Triplets". You will find thousands of references, because that was actually a widely used nickname for them. Ditto for Emilio Estevez, Anthony Michael Hall, Rob Lowe, Andrew McCarthy, Demi Moore, Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwald and Ally Sheedy being referred to as "The Brat Pack". Again, thousands of different references. I mean, just last night Andre Leon Talley referred to Gisele as "the Beauty of all Beauties, the Cover Girl of all Cover Girls". Should we replace Gisele's name with that honorific somewhere in the article? It would be just as justified as using the term "the trinity" based on a single article. In fact, it would be more justified because unlike the Forbes writer, Andre is actually an editor at a fashion magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogan444 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Male supermodels?[edit]

The only ones that comes to mind would be Tony Ward and Marcus Schenkenberg, but both have been around for two to three decades now... any recent example? (The guy (forgot his name) that Karl Lagerfeld hangs around with?) Or do male models simply not qualify...? -- megA (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a section on male supermodels, but I'm guessing it got the ax because it was just a list of names with no sources.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought too. I'm sure there could be sources out there, and there should be a definition clarifying whether there ARE male models that can safely be considered "supermodels", since even successful male models are much less in the limelight than their female counterparts, but frankly I know almost nothing about the business, so I wouldn't know where to look... -- megA (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perceptions, critical analysis, body ideals, etc.[edit]

The article is very thin on the ground when it comes to actualy perceptions of supermodels. In a GA candidate, I would expect a bit a minimum of serious information about perceptions than a passing reference to one article about thinness and whiteness.

The article doesn't have a single reference to any kind of academic research or analysis of the elite fashion industry. And there is nothing about the supermodel as an extension of the female gender role. I think the problem is that the references for the article are entirely limited to random articles from mainstream media and the fashion press. That's not going to make for a particularly neutral article.

Peter Isotalo 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo use[edit]

I think I summed up in my edit summaries my position regarding the use of a photo of Bar Refaeli in the "2000s to present day" section as irrelevant - given that she's not mentioned in this article or discussed as a "supermodel" in her article in any encyclopedic way (or any way at all), and that there's a likely conflict-of-interest in choosing her photo in the first place - but if anyone wants to turn this into a conversation, feel free. I opted to replace the photo with one of Adriana Lima. Not my favorite model by any means, but as one of the big Brazilian models, it's a better choice. If anyone knows of an image with multiple models mentioned in the section, that would be even better.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It now says in her article that she's considered a supermodel. The photo you inserted should obviously be replaced (you were just talking about "conflict of interest") since there's already a photo of a Brazilian model in the article. -Yambaram (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The supermodel info you added to Refaeli's article is pure fluff. "Maxim/Hollywood Reporter/whoever says Refaeli is a supermodel." So? The media lazily refers to every popular commercial fashion model as a supermodel. That doesn't warrant her photo's use here, as would be the case for any number of models that are popular but have no encyclopedic relevance to the history of the term.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's make things clear. This very article says a supermodel "is a highly paid fashion model who usually has a worldwide reputation and often a background in haute couture and commercial modeling." Bar Refaeli is unquestionably one. Among dozens of other things, she was the cover model of the 2009 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and was voted #1 on Maxim magazine's Hot 100 list of 2012. -Yambaram (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Very few models are "unquestionably" considered supermodels. Refaeli is not one of them - not by a long shot. Yes, she is an SI covermodel and topped Maxim's list. Marisa Miller can claim the same, while also topping FHM's global list and being a VS Angel. By that argument, it would be more appropriate to include an image of her over Refaeli.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
May you please answer my question - what makes you say that Bar Refaeli is not a supermodel? -Yambaram (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Unless this article contains multiple (see WP:FRNG) reliable sources calling Refaeli a supermodel, or the article proves that she has been influential in the supermodel realm in some other way than modelling (for instance, by writing a book on the "supermodel" concept), Refaeli shouldn't be pictured in this article. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree somewhat. Reliable sources merely labeling a popular model a "supermodel" are easy to find (the media is pretty lazy in applying the term nowadays) and potential sentences like "Source X says model Y is a supermodel" offer nothing of value to this article. It's the historical context—the "influential in the supermodel realm" part—that's more valid for inclusion here.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
To me, only Bundchen has the high fashion pedigree, commercial modeling fame, and earnings to really be called a current "supermodel."  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Supermodel. 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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)