Talk:Chrissy Teigen

message: This page ABSOLUTELY requires an update to include the bullying and harassment of minors that Chrissy has confessed. This is making headlines worldwide, and by refusing to allow edits, Wikipedia has lost any respectability they may have had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.30.84 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested update

message: Hello I would like at add a subsection for controversy for Teigen regarding her "cyberbullying scandal" as ABC News described. This have been topic of spirited debate between User talk:KyleJoan and I, who I'm sure will chime in soon. He believes the subject isn't worth of that much attention and is the topic of undue weight, but objectively based on the reliable sources available this is a serious topic involving Teigen's widespread harassment over his career online and has recently has resulted in significant media coverage with Vox writing an article titled, " The Cut, Vulture, Slate, and USA Today also covering the scandal. 
Teigen admitted to widespread harassment writing in her recent apology,  She has faced significant media scrutiny with words that have been constantly used to describe Teigen's actions such   was specifically worded by Teigen in her apology.  CNN describes it as a "cybullying scandal" and , ABC News headline: Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for "harassment". The One I Left (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A few things here. By transitioning the personal life material into a "controversy" section, we were left with a page that wasn't written in accordance with the MOS. What we had prior (and now) was/is written in NPOV. We also have to be careful of WP:UNDUE at this stage. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Also, new sections to a talk page should be at the BOTTOM, not the top :) Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the amount of media coverage given to the cyberbullying scandal, don't you think it be included in her page? It feels as though her page is being sanitized much like Don Lemon's page, I don't think this is a case of WP:UNDUE simply due to the amount of coverage it has gotten through many different reliable news sources. This also has impacted her professional life and public image. Also Yes! I originally tried to post at the bottom but kept getting technical difficulties, half of my response was shown, so I have to post at the top! Thanks! The One I Left (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You still should move this down. It does not affect where someone's eyes go, as most Wikipedians only look to the bottom for new posts. So this gets lost. In anycase, as I wrote some of this, I must say - sanitized? No, just NPOV. You can certainly add more material - go ahead! So long as it is sourced etc, you'll be fine. But I would avoid adding controversy sections, as they are contrary to policy. Leave it in the personal section, make sure your sources are strong, content is neutrally worded, and you are less likely to encounter problems with editing. Best of luck, glad you are here! Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! said. MOS:OVERSECTION specifies: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." Teigen and her husband have worked on multiple projects (and supported causes) together, and yet I don't see anyone proposing to include a subsection titled "John Legend marriage and collaborations", which would be more justified than what is proposed here–FWIW, I would oppose the hypothetical subsection as well. Regarding adding more material, The One I Left has done this (twice). See below for 's comprehensive response as to why it was removed. All of that aside, WP:RECENT applies. Users are supposed to write with "an aim toward a long-term, historical view" and not a "let's make a quarter of the article about the news from the last 30 days" view. KyleJoantalk 02:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you User talk:Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! for responding and being respectful. If you believe the cyberbullying scandal as it is, isn't worthy of a "controversy" heading or a "allegations of cyberbullying" then we can wait and see of any updates as more people continue to speak out and new updates emerge. Thank you again responding, I tried posting this down and the post kept being cut off. As to User talk:KyleJoan argument, I'd say Teigen's comprehensive history of alleged cyberbullying from reliable sources and significant media coverage seems a worthy inclusion as it "aims toward a long-term, historical view".The One I Left (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Please weigh in here on whether or not the name of Teigen's child should be included within the infobox.  Per Template:Infobox person including the number of children but not the name/s is preferred. Shearonink (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh course not. It adds ZERO to our understanding of the subject of the article, unless the child is notable in him/her self.--Malerooster (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Endorse leaving out all but the number, have just removed details from Personal life section. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of child in infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chrissy Teigen. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006092404/http://oceandrive.com/personalities/articles/chrissy-teigen-gives-us-fever to http://oceandrive.com/personalities/articles/chrissy-teigen-gives-us-fever
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006092404/http://oceandrive.com/personalities/articles/chrissy-teigen-gives-us-fever to http://oceandrive.com/personalities/articles/chrissy-teigen-gives-us-fever
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed the href stuff from the filmography table - I'm assuming it's meant to be used as a note thing however it doesn't show at all ....,
I've pasted it below for those that understand this and may see a workaround, (click edit and you'll see it all), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  href in table 

message: Is she a model still or is she a former model? Can't seem to find her working as a professional model today. On the contrary, she refers to her modeling career as something in the past, e.g. here. -21:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Post wrote  in May, and The Wall Street Journal described Teigen as a  just last month. I guess if reliable sources still deem her a model, then we should do so as well? KyleJoantalk 05:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the rule for some media is "once a model, always a model" and we'll just have to wait for the years to pass and the rule to become ludicrous. Fair enough.  -The Gnome (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a model? 

message: She has three children not 2 so the children needs to be changed to 2 Emllia (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ~ Amkgp 💬 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020 

message: What should the "children" parameter indicate in the  on this article and that of John Legend?
#(blank)
#2
#3 Elizium23 (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no blanket prohibition against including children of BLPs, and in fact Template:Infobox person says only to omit the names of non-notable children in the infobox, meaning that the field absolutely is for the number: "Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children." The number is the primary purpose of that template field.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's part of the template. If we want to argue against the inclusion of that line in the template, then that's an RfC for Template:Infobox person and its affiliated templates ("Infobox model", "Infobox officeholder", etc.). But that line is in the Infobox because of consensus it should be there.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's in the infobox doesn't mean that it should be filled out in every case. (t · c) buidhe 16:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in infobox documentation, policy or guidelines that say we shouldn't fill out infobox fields when we have RS-cited information. It's literally what infoboxes are for. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, not censor information, particularly when it's pertinent and widely publicly known in reliable journalistic / reference / academic sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I’m still not understanding the mythology that children have any bearing on notability anyway. It’s a biological detail not a career accomplishment. No other article’s subject has removed the number children for any reason. Trillfendi (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a whole other discussion for a wider forum than that of any one particular article. To give a short answer, no one would expect Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson not to provide information about his children. It's a pertinent part of someone's biography.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Still not seeing where I can find this . Template:Infobox person says the "children" parameter is typically filled with the number of children; it does not say the parameter must be filled. I believe  already made a similar point. KyleJoantalk 04:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , the consensus exists in the thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of BLPs where the field is filled in by the maintainers and unreverted by people who believe it shouldn't be there. All of us have agreed it should be there when reliably sourced. It's just a few rabble-rousers on this talk page who don't like that decision and choose to ignore it. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see the issue - us it absolute WP styling that dictates every single infobox parameter must be filled? Even if the media cites that they have two children, the pregnancy, birth and loss of their third child was widely reported and equally as encyclopedic. --Bettydaisies (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Given the last 3 months with bullying issues (her receiving and her dishing out) I think her page should be updated to reflect that.
She moved off social media, but at the same time, the last 2 weeks have resurfaced some issues of her own with respect to women, misogyny, transphobic and toxic social media culture.
Being both victim and perpetrator, its going to be a bit of a challenge to fairly capture but given how many notable people are having to deal with and also answer for past comments.
Update: the entry is a start, but it's still not capturing a lot of the critisicm. Endorsements were pulled as well as denouncement by retailers.
She deleted around 60,000 tweets (some of them including weird comments about children) and the only thing on here is about Courtney Stoddard? Someone is getting paid (or is really biased) to keep this fallout to a minimum on this page.2600:8805:A980:5D00:88AE:2770:435E:C368 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass deleting tweets isn’t newsworthy. Some people hire a company to do it for them. Claiming people are getting paid to “keep” unflattering info off is extraordinary. You can’t just throw around allegations like that without evidence.  Trillfendi (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section/twitter & bullying 

message: Provocateur Mike Cernovich made a tweet criticising this article. https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1393048324651945984 Nexus000 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provocative tweet 

message: The "controversy" section was removed with out explanation by user KyleJoan. This section is relevant and should not have been completely removed. This section should be added back due to the section being wholly relevant to current events, reporting, and factual descriptions available to and reported by the media in the past months, weeks, and days. I believe that this deletion was not in good faith by user KyleJoan. The deletion appears to be damage control for the article subject's brand and name. 66.76.52.212 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: There is an explanation in the previous edit to the removal.  states that the removal is focused on a few key factors that do not appear to be backed up by the sources present: 
* widespread harassment - this sounds like an exaggeration and isn't specifically backed up by any source, a violation of WP:BLP. At first glance, this looks like an overstatement, and there are likely other issues with this claim.
* original research - the claim as to the reasons for her products being removed can very easily be inferred, as well as the reason for her backing out of the Netflix production, but the sources do not directly tie these together. Due to this, we can't necessarily say those are related, otherwise it looks like we, as Wikipedia, are stating these claims, which is not what we are here to do.
* As to removing her apology and the controversy section, generally having a "controversy" section is unfavorable on Wikipedia, as it leads to undue coverage. It may be disingenuous to hide this in her personal life, section, however. The controversy does still live in the article, and we could add a subsection heading there pointing to it if nobody disagrees. Just my two cents. As it stands, we should have consensus here before making any major changes to the content, especially before restoring this content, given the issues pointed out above.  A S U K I T E  23:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comprehensive response, Asukite! While I'm in agreement with most of it (i.e., your references to BLP, OR, and UNDUE), I must disagree with the suggestion to add a subsection for reasons I outlined above. I also don't believe that it's disingenuous to leave the paragraph that discusses her cyberbullying in the "personal life" section since it is longer than the material about her family, for which she is abundantly more notable. KyleJoantalk 02:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , fair enough, that's a good point about the length of material. As for the subsection, I don't have a position either way, I just thought it may be a potential solution. The article seems to be fine as it is currently.  A S U K I T E  03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 

message: This is from the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62925701
(Fran Bosh (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stillbirth or Abortion 

message: I cannot find any references to the body-shaming incident from 2020 when internet trolls criticized Teigen's bikini selfie. The incident was covered by media, but the only references to cyber bullying on this page are about her as bully, not the bullied. If wiki pages are meant to provide information without subjective opinions, then it would be fair to include this somewhere, not sure which section. I'm including a link to one People article, but there are plenty of sources for reference. Also note, the incident is used as an example of negative effects on the wiki page about the term"thirst trap." I argue that there should be a link, to this incident between these pages, for continuity sake. 
https://people.com/style/chrissy-teigen-claps-back-at-trolls-who-critiqued-her-swimsuit-selfie/ MandieJ1975 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bikini selfie body shaming