Talk:Emily Ratajkowski

Bloated?

How much detail is considered too much? I am looking at Career in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsparkwars1 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. No need to trace the minutiae breadcrumbs trail of all the minor minor photo shoots she did and how they led to more work.

let the timeline be in a table with minimal commentary. Wikipedia is not a super fan site and not a publicist’s writer life story narratives.

A catalogue of tweets by well known people about her should not be in the Wikipedia page. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:4907:F45:1206:6515 (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The subtrivial needs to be removed. Like, she didn’t like going to fraternities in the education section.

has someone hired a or firm to build this Wikipedia page? 107.197.56.204 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Writing career

Should there be a subsection dedicated to Ratajkowski's writing career? At this point, she has published multiple essays in notable outlets, and her first book is due to be published this year. Given these developments, it might also make sense to add 'writer' to the list of occupations in the opening sentence and in the side box. Orangestwo (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree here. She's now published a New York Times Bestselling essay collection. Nearly a dozen of these essays have appeared in other magazines, such as New York Magazine, before they were published in a collection. In a profile interview by Andrea Long Chu, it's noted that people gossiped that she would hire a ghostwriter or put an image of herself on the cover. She did neither which speaks to me as a writer taking their craft i.e. words and sentences and paragraphs and storytelling pretty seriously (this is an opinion, though). It seems like part of her identity as well as professional output includes writing serious essays in serious places. Peoplelikeyoulikeme (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange, unencyclopaedic tone

Followed this through from the Robin Thicke article, and this section seems... really unencyclopaedic in tone, and is very clearly designed to emphasise an editor's P.O.V.: "Ratajkowski's assessment of her involvement in "Blurred Lines" as an unequivocal and properly feminist moment were reconsidered in her 2021 memoir, My Body. A hitherto repressed exchanged between Thicke and Ratajkowski in which Thicke, borne of frustration and indignation at the attention Ratajkowski commanded on set at his expense, grasped Ratajkowski's breast without her consent, causing Emily to cower and the shoot to momentarily halt. Because Ratajkowski didn't retaliate and because Thicke wasn't held accountable in any way, Ratajkowski relives the event in her memoir in order to illustrate the complex idea that the shoot was a real claim to female power though perhaps only as a result of the male's behest: "[T]he women who gained their power from beauty were indebted to the men whose desire granted them their power in the first place ... With that one gesture, Robin Thicke reminded everyone on the set that we women weren't really in charge ... I was nothing more than the hired mannequin." Way too much editorializing going on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.207.33 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree here - 100%. I've started to edit this page. I started with the intro. Some of the writing has a tone that is either gossipy, a little subjective, or not totally encyclopedic. It goes in both directions of super fans gushing or politicizing her or detractors writing sloppy things like focusing too much on controversies surrounding images of the model/actress/writer rather than the actual work the model/actress/writer has achieved to make them a notable living persons. The language needs to be straightforward, concise, professional and as objective as possible. When in doubt, records should reflect a mantra that is similar to this: "what has this person done rather than what has been done to this person." Peoplelikeyoulikeme (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried bringing this up years ago but I was called an uncivil meanie. So, it stayed this way unfortunately. All I can say is the person who wrote this article is her biggest fan. Trillfendi (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Got it. I am thinking about semi-protecting this page. I spent about two days updating the page to fit 2023 edits. Someone reverted all of the edits I had made regarding less tabloid and gossip-like language as well as new notable achievement. I feel like this page can easily be vandalized or trolled. I don't think it's appropriate to include gossip. Peoplelikeyoulikeme (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I think this article has kind of lost in quality since it has been promoted to good article, and the laast reassessment in 2018. I would suggest to file a GA-reassessment as a start. Any thoughts on that? Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Although it's strange. I keep attempting to edit the article so that it sounds less gossipy and has 2023 updates (like, she's an award winning writer...) however someone keeps reverting those edits. It feels like vandalism. I've requested to semi-protect the page but haven't heard back.

Is there anything to be done? Peoplelikeyoulikeme (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I also keep adding that she is a writer to her intro page. It keeps getting taken down saying this is not notable.

Here's a list of links that review her first book which is a collection of essays that have been published in major publications both online and in print. These book reviews also are major publications. Are there certain guidelines for what constitutes a writer? Why can't someone be a model, actress, and a writer? I feel like I'm missing some important guideline that regarding writers. I've published a number of pages and edited a number of pages for writers. Some of these writers are notable for other things, too, besides writing and they haven't won major awards, published essays in major publications, or have not had a NYT Bestseller yet Wikipedia editors have approved writer in their intro section.

New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/magazine/emily-ratajkowski.html

[this is a whole feature on Emily by award winning critic Andrea Long Chu in which Andrea notes that Emily is a writer.]

The Atlantic - https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2021/11/emily-ratajkowski-my-body-book-review/620681/

The New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/05/books/review-my-body-emily-ratajkowski.html

The Guardian - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/05/books/review-my-body-emily-ratajkowski.html

The Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/emily-ratajkowski-my-body/2021/11/08/e90e750e-3e71-11ec-bfad-8283439871ec_story.html

Vulture - https://www.vulture.com/article/my-body-emily-ratajkowski-review.html

Would love to have a conversation about this, if possible. Or, should I bring this up at a Wikipedia-Edit-athon or email editors directly about this? Peoplelikeyoulikeme (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

first of all, someone isnt a "writer" or "author" because he/she has released one book. second, read MOS:ROLEBIO --FMSky (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. We're on the same team here as we are both Wikipedia editors. I appreciate your help. Fingers crossed she continues to write and eventually writes the minimum requirement of books it takes to be considered a writer on Wikipedia. Thanks again! Peoplelikeyoulikeme (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski's First Animated Feature Film debut. 2004

Emily Ratajkowski as Lt. Maggie Weston 185.69.145.86 (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

Add "I KNOW?" by Travis Scott to music video appearances table Consevere (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)