Talk:Kate Moss/Archive 1

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

Opening comments

Hello! Earlier version listed the height as 5'6". However the official page lists it as 5'8". I'm also adding/correcting the details based on what I've found at the official page and at IMDB page. Other info. has been obtained from the trivia page at celebavenue.com. celebavenue.com lists the info as being in public domain. I checked the spelling mistakes and grammar and I hope all is OK ;-). Lazyd0g 13:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either she was 10 when she was discovered or she was born in 1970. The way it is now, the math doesn't add up. DCEdwards1966 05:40, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I found the date she was discovered on IMDB and changed it. DCEdwards1966 05:50, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Different Kate Moss

Yes it's all very funny but you know it was a different Kate Moss who wrote the book about sex for caretakers of the developmentally whatever. The book is online (google for it) as a pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.17.226 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Issues

Known to be 5,8 commonly (included with her management book - the only professional reference worth while noting)... and is by far not the shortest model in the world... not even the shortest super-model currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.126.87 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

First off she started nothing... the management company, photographers, bookers, magazines, designers all started the "waif" look... not her. And given her height she is not skinny compared to Gisele Bundchen or other top models. These days she is for her height... moving into large for a top model. Mental illness causes eating disorders not magazines. This is not a forum for bitter over weight people looking to blame someone for poor eating habits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.126.87 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

Another beef about this page would be the fact that ALL the links with the exception of the Storm model page (her management company or agency) would either be sex links, fan sites or unreliable third party sources... including IMBD which is a third party source far too often. These should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.126.87 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

Her career lacked reference. The measurements are incorrect according to her official agency. Her background was listed incorrectly and the story from the link provided was by ANOTHER Kate Moss and is more than just incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.106.39 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Hatnote

Why the link to an article that has two lines forefront above the subject matter... Kate Moss and Kate Mosse need not be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.23.189 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have put cleanup note on this article, not least because of the following

  • "Moss has dated Johnny Depp in the past." How is this relevant enough to warrant a whole paragraph?
  • "Moss has dated an endless string of persons known and unknown." Meaningless and of no interest.
  • "famous for clashes with local gendarmes" - colloquial, and unhelpful.
  • "Doherty's girlfriend dying of mysterious causes." Innuendo.
  • "adored not only by the haute couture but by the everyday plebian as well". POV

Edit, forgot to sign: Dave 17:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Found her because of the CNN article, but I'd never heard of her before. I attempted a cleanup, but I left the notice until people with a better knowledge of her are able to check it. Sahasrahla 17:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dave, sorry but what you said is quite stupid. All of those things that were written are perfectly fine and people generally like to know them. She is a celebrity and when it comes to writing facts about them, relationships are of a big importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.13.22 (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Wikipedia? It's meant to be an encyclopedia, not the online version of the National Enquirer. While her relationships may be of interest, the above criticisms are quite valid, and, frankly, this article is in rather poor shape. 69.217.127.66 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is very poor - I cleaned up the titles, so it's tidier and corrected some of the bad grammar. I was going to delete all of the businesses section because it is not that relevant and only one sentence. Perhaps someone could work into the rest of the article? Jockmonkey 03:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

--I'm going to take out the bit about Pete Doherty's girlfriend dying of mysterious causes until someone can actually prove that it happened. I've never heard of it happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.65.91 (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Could we list Johnny Depp as a domestic partner? She is listed on his page. Broadwayfan15 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Height

The (documented?) claim that Moss is unusually small for a model sounded to me like POV original research, and so I have removed it, SqueakBox 19:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Philanthropy?

Possing in prego porn and helping ROCK BANDS is philanthropy? Wow, wikipedia can be full of shit sometimes. 209.124.118.111 —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC).

Perhaps it can be reworded without being removed, SqueakBox 19:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the preceding sentence. Possing? Prego porn? Full of sometimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.9.229 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV section

The whole section on the cocaine controversy is badly POV. In particular, I'm tempted to just hack out this portion completely:

The news including the alledged photos, appear to be clearly the result of criminal wiretapping -- illegal photographs and illegal eavesdropping -- those illegal acts then further participated in by the publishing of that criminally obtained information. And perhaps aided by payment for the info obtained criminally.

UK tabloids as the Daily Mirror have a long history of extreme attacks on any and all to pump newspaper sales. These attacks and news presentations are beyond any seen in e.g. the USA.

This is simply an attack on the Daily Mirror to divert attention from the real issue. I expect this sort of low tactic in newspapers, but it hardly seems proper in a wikipedia article.

Thoughts? --221.249.13.34 07:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably NPOV now, so I've removed the NPOV tag. It's still crap, but it's probably not worth tidying up until the current excitement dies down. --221.249.13.34 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

measurements

she is known for her thin, slight figure. those measurements definitely seem wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.11.242 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Legacy

I have rermoved this section which was drawing conclusions, not NPOV and generally unencyclopedic. It added nothing, SqueakBox 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Freud painting

Was that painting ever put on show or was is a completely private sale? ZephyrAnycon 00:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Added info re: Freud and Chuck Close portraits. Noel vs liam (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Noel_vs_Liam

Pete Doherty

Some one wrote this about Kate dumping him = "and to rid herself of no good boyfriend Pete Doherty"

Yeah, some one should sort that out, it's not very neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim-Jim (talk • contribs) 01:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is there such little mention about her and pete's relationship? they are living together, have been together for over a year and are pretty much engaged. I don't understand. Feudonym 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First trip to rehab

This was referred to at the time as treatement for 'exhaustion'; this is common PR speak that covers up bigger issues, and as such the sentence explaining this trip shouldn't be presented as fact. It may have been the story she, or her manager, used to explain it, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.165.142 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine use and POV on Mirror comments

The paragraph on the Mirror's treatement of Moss is verging on POV and needs to be re-edited. this isn't unusual treatment for a celebrity, and her cocaine use has been gossiped about widely, and in more places than the Mirror (see Popbitch and Holymoly over the past 5 years). Is the use of 'allegedly' in relation to the photo proper? It seems very clear cut that she was using drugs in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.165.142 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no it doesn't. For the sam reason that ther police wopn't charge here we cannot claim that the white substance was cocaine; that would be libellous, it might be flour she could argue, SqueakBox 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox, your points are valid and I understand and agree with them to a degree, but given that few individuals have anything to gain from snorting substances such as flour, there is a narrow array of substances that Moss could have been snorting on that day, and most (if not all) of them are drugs of some sort (prescription drugs included). The evidence is just stacked against Moss in this case. blackmorningsun 8:16, 31 July 2006

I removed the reference to cocaine addict in the intro sentence. It is covered elshere in the article and is not really appropriate in a general opening sentence. Master shepherd 05:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the very POV-ish concluding paragraph which seemed to rely on Peter Hitchens to suggest that her behavior is an "act". Many people think Gordon Brown or GW Bush are phony liars too, but it doesn't warrant placement in an encyclopedia entry.Bogan444 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the minor question of why she and her boyfriend both checked into rehab if she was snorting flour in that damaging photograph. I admit that it's POV of me, but if she's not suffering from an eating disorder, drug abuse is probably the best explanation for her rail-thin figure. Even particularly skinny people don't tend to be that skeletal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.192.17 (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Twiggy, trying to grab some attention, is now a source for Kate's "real" height?!?! Please! Get real!!! She is listed as 5'8". NOWHERE official, is her height listed as 5'6. GOSSIP!!! Somebody should remove this, asap.

The original Calvin Klein ad garnered attention due to Kate's age, NOT her weight.

Kate is on this page BECAUSE she IS a celebrity. Therefore her relationships with other celebrities ARE of significance.

Regarding the issue with her measurements... try and understand she is in her 30's now. She will not have maintained the same measurements she had when she was 14.

As for the links... why are there so many fan sites listed?! There are perfectly good links to Vogue.com and other recognized fashion magazines (she is a fashion model... remember?!) available that FAN sites can be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.120.250 (talk) 1:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Twiggy citation should be removed. Anyway, didn't Kate Moss say during an interview at some point that she was just under 5 foot 6? I'll see if I can find it. --65.25.219.139 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's universally known that Kate Moss is 5"6. Modelling agencies tend to lie. And there is no need to be rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.171.139 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Daughter

I added the details of her daughter ... if this breaches some sort of protocol, please delete. RatherConfused 13:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

About the notes here regarding Kate's height, while she is officially listed as 5'8", she is widely known in the modeling world to be 5'6". The Twiggy comment may be exaggerated (dunno, you can check Twiggy's autobiography to see what she really says...Twiggy might be a little taller than 5'4" herself anyways) though. But I know people who have worked with her and who have met her--they all agree she is somewhere between 5'6" to 5'7". Also, the measurements, especially the heights of models on their comp cards and agency listings are usually modified. (Check out Storm Models listing Kate's bust as a 34B--she is definitely NOT even close to that.) Modeling agencies usually have a 5'9" to 5'11" standard for models--heights are therefore often changed to fit more or less in this range. 5'8" is even pushing it a bit for runway...etc. Anyways, the point of this is that Kate's height being 5'6" may not be 100% certain, but it is no less certain than the listed 5'8" and is probably closer to her actual height due to these many factors. It's not just gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.184.248 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Other business involvements"?

Whether it's nonsense or not that section is very poorly worded and there's an advertisement in it, i.e. a picture that has a link for "WATCH TV AD" right by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.51.96 (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging that. I have removed the section, SqueakBox 15:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Modelling details

The Modelling details section should be removed as the information it provides can change very often and hence not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. --Soumyasch 16:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

clean up required - and most urgently!!!

The article is full of rumours, speculations and conjectures - more or less unproven. Not very encyclopedic, this. Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid or a gossip magazine. So what we need here is a major clean up to reach WP-standards, yes. --Fromgermany 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think most facts have citations now.. mirageinred 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The comment about Kate and Pete marrying yesturday reduces the article to what could be seen as tabloid gossip, this should be sourced if it is true or corrected immediately as it reduces the overall perception of quality considerably. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.36.21 (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

I have deleted the comment discussed as it is apparently untrue --81.155.36.21 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Sazzlej -- 13:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Madonna Painting by Lucien Freud & Madonna of Plums Pics

Lucien Freud famous UK painter painted Moss as Madonna (pose) and besides that painting, there is also a pic of her as Madonna of Plums at these links.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.11 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures??

ok are these really the best photo's we can come up with??? someone change atleast the first one, even the calvin klien picture isnt really that good, she is a model so i doubt it'l be that hard to find atleast one good photo of her. --Fabio 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not difficult to find pictures of her (there are thousands) it's more abotu finding pictures that we are allowed to use on wikipedia. I like the CK one, but the first one isn't that great. I'll look around. -- Bang Bang You're Dead 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The photos here show that she is unhealthily thin and there are these strange scars/cuts (lots of them) on her right buttock. I am not sure how to properly include this information in the article. Anomo 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They're called stretch marks you tit. Every woman has them. Bang Bang You're Dead, 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't. My arse is a perfect smooth peachy delight. 86.157.51.168 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kate Moss Weight

Is her weight for a fact 107 since I have heard from many sources 105 as well?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.12.18 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

What difference does two pounds make? Her weight flactuates anyway. 212.139.222.62 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Music Involvements

In the music involvements there is one paragraph about the music and then the rest is about different topics all in one section and it doesnt seem very organized. --24.141.12.18 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sun Page 3 appearance - Kate, 32 from Croydon

This isn't mentioned anywhere - is it worthy of mention? Stupidly, I can't find a source apart from a question asked on a celebrity edition of The Weakest Link on Saturday 30th December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.129.200 (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Facts and Figures

"She has appeared on over 300 magazine covers"... Right. Add another zero to that at least. Of course, the statement: "She has appeared on over 1 magazine cover" is also correct in a way. The source is "usmagazine.com" (who?), which perhaps goes to show the American leanings of Wikipedia. I'd have at least got a reference from English Vogue, a modelling agency, Elle magazine, something similar, or nothing at all. Think about it. 300 a year more like.
Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.94.110 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

External peer review - The Independent

This article was externally reviewed on February 12, 2006 by The Independent. "Factually, this is dead accurate, though it is cloaked in po-faced language"

Well, no shit! That's exactly what Wikipedia is - an objective reporting of sourced facts. If the language is po-faced, then at least that means it doesn't contain weasel words, peacock terms or similar.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Waifish"

WHY does the opening description of Kate Moss (here or anywhere else) describe her as "waifish"? A quick review of the 850+ readily available photographs on the web show her looking "waifish" in fewer than one-half of one percent. For a woman with a slight build, she looks remarkably hardy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.36.109 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

"The British tabloids and paparazzi often target Moss, most likely because she never gives interviews." "In interviews Moss dismissed these claims as ridiculous" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.234.204 (talk) 16:14, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Said inconsistency still there and very glaring. Not to mention the weasel words "most likely because..." So I'm taking out the first of the phrases. 74.134.100.173 12:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Music Industry

Is it really encyclopedic to mention that she has friends with rock artists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.14.152 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cocainemagcover.jpg

Image:Cocainemagcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Fair Use Rationale added. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This entire paragraph babbling about following rules for "fair use" of a pic entirely misses the main point, the pic itself is a "slander" of a person proven by the London poilce not charging KM with anything; and further proven by KM winning lawsuit v. the newspaper that had paid for the wiretapping and invasion of privacy of KM - which is what the pic and its accompanying video were, a string of illegal activity which the above babble is justifying using under the mistaken idiocy of "fair use". Using this pic is not fair , whether those rules are followed or not and is illegal and is slander and wikipedia.org is subject to slander lawsuits, the same as anyone else. Rosco Lb, Atty Sr Esq. !! 76.202.166.85 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the image in question, until the validity of the legal challenge by anon user (above) can be established, so as to avoid possible libel action... despite my reservations about the validity of the above advice. Should not be readded until legal status can be verified.-Toon05 00:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Height

Isn't Kate Moss 5'7"? Anonynonymous (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If that. CelebHeights.com, a site I feel is generally pretty accurate, puts her at 5'5.75". Wikipedia does seem to have a habit of overstating models' heights by taking the figures listed by modelling agencies at face value. 86.145.122.139 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone has now changed the figure. I hope it doesn't get changed back to 5'8" in some crazy "verifiability" debate. No one in their right mind thinks she's 5'8". 86.147.121.254 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

She is actually 5'7" as stated in August 2008's Vogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.361.94.137 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that agencies both for actors and models lie about their height. CelebHeights.com does everything possible like take pictures next to celebirties ect. to get a better feel of that celebrities' real height is.--Anen87 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Height and body measurements

Isn't Kate notoriously short for a catwalk model? Only about 5'6" maybe 7". Plus, if she's a waif, wouldn't she be smaller than the measurements supplied? 86.10.75.40 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes she's short for catwalk she's roughly 5'6. If you go to fashionmodeldirectory.com and look up her fashion show list she hardly did Runways shows compared to the other models listed there.--Anen87 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

LGBT models category

The "LGBT models" category was added to this article. I think we need a good reference before we can add this category. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Moss&diff=217054527&oldid=216598434 Tweisbach (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As helpful as this category could be theoretically, such a categorization must be done on the basis of a relevant source. --Catgut (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Middle name

Kate's middle name is not Germintrude. Thank you to whichever toss-pot wrote it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.232.191 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That was *just* the occasional vandalism, and has been reverted by other users before. --Catgut (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

What's up with the current photo of Kate Moss on the Wikipedia page? It looks like the photo has been deliberately selected to make her look as unappealing and unattractive as possible. Hardly what I would expect to see for a supermodel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.240.108 (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

'removed unvetted info/rant by obvious sun paper attack monkey'

Moss has 10s of 1000s of photos on google and elsewhere that are in the public domain and readily available including of her recent wedding - hymen joans laytoe jr
69.121.221.97 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
So the above diatribe by attack monkey with obvious mega bias seems to prove the mindless of his
 :::   selecting anything anywhere for wiki to post; we are the illuminati , look up , you'll see us ; ) !!! 68.195.88.82 (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sun

{{editsemiprotected}} Under 'Personal Life' where it says 'The Sun' should actually be the The Sun Newspaper 81.105.159.66 (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  175° 45' 30" NET   11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There are references to The Sun. The Sun is one of the worst sources to get information from. How can you people complain about people having to get reliable sources when all over this site The Sun is accepted? 94.168.37.41 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Princess of Italy daughter of Kate Moss

This 'princess of Italy' info should be added to the personal section. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.56.245 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article should be revised.with proof sheet made to verify changes made and check for additional errors

She's 40 now . Are you sure her real measurements are 34-26-35.5(US); 86-66-90 (EU) ? And a few weeks age she was on the cover of playboy magazine. ARE YOU SURE SHE'S STILL MARRIED ??!!!! Really ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.121.72.73 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

It's a well-known fact that she was in a relationship with Depp yet no mention is made of this? I've found that on other pages details of previous relationships have also been removed. Why is this happening? If you give an overview of somebody shouldn't this info also be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.111.1.27 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears to have been removed by John.james250 in this edit. I am not sure why, but it would appear to be because it is entirely unsourced. If you have reliable sources that talk about Moss' personal relationships, you are welcome to add them. Be sure they abide by WP:BLP though. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gold statue

I know lot's of newspapers say this is the largest SOLID GOLD STATUE SINCE ANCIENT EGYPT TIMES, but things like the Golden Buddha do exist, and there's no need to propagate sensationalist claims like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.147.66 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

surface

this article bears very little relationship to the actual real kate moss... e.g. she has , owns, runs many billionaire level businesses which are not referred to ... ... and she has throughout decades, had many very close relationships with others never mentioned... bfs she has been with over decades - as e.g. bz, sl ... ... and so the article is a surface phenom, bearing almost no relationship to reality ... 'tite' joans selassie, 119th !! 68.195.88.82 (talk) /// and i attest to all that as i witness & unimpeachable source sr , CINCU 68.195.88.82 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Daily News article of 14 Jan 2010 relates that Kate had a 6 month affair with Prince Emanuele Filiberto (di Savoy) son of present claimant to Italizan throne,

and so appearing to disprove Jeff Hack , who appears on the Westminster birth certificate of Kate daughter ; ... fef: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1243137/My-secret-affair-Kate-Moss-Italys-Prince-Emanuele-Filiberto.html dadwillybob 47.18.43.166 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Taking B rating from WP:BIO. High importance because she defined a new era of skinnier "waiff" models. Daniel Case 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Katherine Ann Moss

Can anyone provide a source that Kate Moss' full name is Katherine Ann Moss? Jarold Blythe provided this source, but it does not mention that name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I see is this, but it's WP:CIRC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you read her Who's Who entry or only the url?[2][3][4] Jarold (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, nearly every other language version of Wikipedia has her full name, as well as Simple English. It's also on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. There are furthermore many sources like:
Three different editors have checked. Jarold (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Marquis' Who's Who is not RS. See here. Elle and Guardian seem more promising. Would like to see what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
So you didn't read the entry. Jarold (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
IMDb
NIDZ
tvguide
There is already consensus on Wikipedia worldwide. You're the only editor on the other side of the fence. Jarold (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Sky Channel
Vemos TV
The Biography Channel
Vogue Encyclopedia
And so forth. By the way, Marquis is quite reliable when it comes to names. Jarold (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kate Moss. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Moss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kate Moss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Moss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Agency

There's been editing about Moss' agency/agencies but it's all unsourced. I just found a Vogue article saying she left an agency (http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2016/04/01/kate-moss-leaves-storm-models-agency). Instead of edit warring figured we can discuss what's going on and how to address it. Pinging TPC2016. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi, ... Camilla Johnson-Hill is now her Brand and business Manager... please see website attached as confirmation: http://www.katemoss.com

The following amendments need to be made to the page:

Website: www.katemoss.com

Manager: Camilla Johnson-Hill

Agency: IMG Models, D Management Group ( As kate is still represented by those.. please see models.com http://models.com/models/Kate-Moss)

==amFAR-- Kate has supported amFar (aids research charity) with galas in San Paulo, Brazil and Hong Kong, please add ; ref www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2597582  ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3542969/Kate-Moss-Naomi-Campbell-stun-dresses-amfAR-Inspiration-Gala.html  ; http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Kate+Mhttp://www.zimbio.com/photos/Kate+Moss/2015+amfAR+Hong+Kong+Gala+Inside/HdfV6tP43M2oss/2015+amfAR+Hong+Kong+Gala+Inside/HdfV6tP43M2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.215.132 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Many Thanks!

heroin chic

"Linking to Heroin here serves no purpose. The section talks about heroin chic, which is a fashion 'look', and heroin is about the drug"

@Rsrikanth05: you know, Rsrikanth05, I think Huggle is in error, I really do, because "Linking to Heroin here serves no purpose" looks to me like WP:VD "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose", because, as we both know, the purpose of activity here as editors is to create an encyclopedia, to provide knowledge to others, and although "heroin chic, - is a fashion 'look'", it is a term of fashion yes, if you pause for a moment at look at the term:

heroin chic

you'll see the fashion relevant part of the term is "chic", the first part of the term refers to "a nihilistic vision of beauty" that was reflective of drug addiction (Givhan, Robin (August 8, 1996)" - "At the time during which heroin chic emerged, the popular image of heroin was changing for several reasons (Durrant, Russil & Thakker)"

Sederecarinae (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You know I think you think that I added the link to criticise Kate Moss or attempt to over-emphasise heroin as a factor of her life, but at the time I thought, since not everyone might know anything about "heroin", there are numerous people who might be interested in beauty, and beauty is something which is possible for people to experience in public places, adverts, television, et cetera, - beauty is a mainstream subject, but "heroin" is a more niche, and less public subject in society. Although the term "heroin chic" is a term which is rooted in illegal activity; the existence of the article "heroin" - it is only another encyclopedia article, not an attempt to advertise or promote illegal drug-use, and as an integral element of the fashion term, it is itself independently identified with Kate Moss, the term is not just a fashion term. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Huggle was used only in the first edit. The second edit was manually done by me. I undid your revision and my reasons were clear in the edit summary. If heroin has to be mentioned anywhere, let it be mentioned on Heroin chic. It still has no purpose on this page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Name problem

Kate's real name is not Katherine Ann Moss. This is not the name on her birth certificate and is not factually correct to have as part of her Wikipedia page. Can anyone tell me what is the correct process to have this changed.JonathanMadden (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP -- generally, material about living persons should be cited by reliable sources. There appear to be several sources (which I've looked at in passing but haven't looked at closely for purposes of assessing reliability) that support the use of "Katherine Ann Moss" as either her legal name or birth name. We cannot go against these sources unless you can provide us another source (or better, sources) that both support what you're saying and are reliable enough to outweigh the other four sources already in the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If I get a copy of the birth certificate, How do I show that to you in order to confirm the change?JonathanMadden (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC) And thank you I appreciate you coming back to help. JonathanMadden (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

'She worked several local retail jobs in her early teens'

should be corrected to:

'She worked at several local retail jobs in her early teens'

The former is an ungrammatical colloquialism (quite common in the USA) and is not grammaticality correct English. 86.137.135.17 (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Moss/Archive_1&oldid=1217549898"