Talk:Chrissy Teigen

Requested update

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)

Controversy

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, "Chrissy Teigen’s fall from grace The Cut, Vulture, Slate, and USA Today also covering the scandal. Teigen admitted to widespread harassment writing in her recent apology, "there are others — and more than just a few — who I need to say I’m sorry to. I’m in the process of privately reaching out to the people I insulted." She has faced significant media scrutiny with words that have been constantly used to describe Teigen's actions such "insulted", "bullied", and "harassed". "Insulted" was specifically worded by Teigen in her apology. "Bullied" CNN describes it as a "cybullying scandal" and "Harassed", ABC News headline: Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for "harassment". The One I Left (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).[1][2] See below for Asukite'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. KyleJoan^talk 02:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

Name of child in infobox

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)

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)

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

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

href in table

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, –Davey2010^Talk 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Filmography

Film and television roles
Year	Title	Role	Notes
2007–2008	Deal or No Deal	Herself - Briefcase Model #12	8 episodes
2011	Cookies & Cocktails	Herself	Cooking Channel program
2012–2015	America's Next Top Model	Herself / Supermodel / Challenge Judge	2 episodes
2013	Model Employee	Herself / Host	8 episodes
2013–2014	The View	Herself / Guest Co-Hostess	2 episodes
2014	Inside Amy Schumer	Herself	Episode: "Boner Doctor"
2014	Snack Off	Herself / Judge	18 episodes
2014	Ridiculousness	Herself	1 episode
2015–2016	FabLife	Herself / Co-Host	179 episodes
2015–present	Lip Sync Battle		81 episodes
2015	The Mindy Project	Grace	Episode: "San Francisco Bae"
2016	The Toycracker: A Mini-Musical Spectacular	Nutcracker	Television film
2017	Double Dutchess: Seeing Double	Herself	Segment "M.I.L.F. $"
2018	Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation	Crystal	Voice
2018	A Legendary Christmas with John and Chrissy	Herself	Christmas special

Music videos

Year	Title	Artist	Notes
2007	"Stereo"	John Legend
2013	"All of Me"
2016	"Love Me Now"
	"M.I.L.F.$"	Fergie
2019	"Preach"	John Legend

Video games

Year	Title	Role	Notes
2011	Need for Speed: The Run	Nikki Blake	Voice

References

Still a model?

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)

The Washington Post wrote model and Cravings author Chrissy Teigen in May, and The Wall Street Journal described Teigen as a model and social-media celebrity just last month. I guess if reliable sources still deem her a model, then we should do so as well? KyleJoan^talk 05:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

She has three children not 2 so the children needs to be changed to 2 Emllia (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Pregnancy loss

I don't believe it would be correct to classify her and John's loss to be a miscarriage. A pregnancy loss is classified as a miscarriage when its less than 20 weeks gestation. More than 20 weeks and I believe it would be a stillbirth. Chrissy was around 20 weeks so I would say pregnancy loss and not miscarriage. Many news articles other than the one cited are saying it was a pregnancy loss following complications (https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/chrissy-teigen-john-legend-lose-baby-after-pregnancy-complications-1.5127813). Can the wording be changed in the article to be more correct? I got the definition for miscarriage from the wikipedia entry. The Washington Post would be another source: Washington Post Larla77 (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Here to agree with the previous post. Also, since they have shared his name and since their other kids' names are on the page, the baby should be known as Jack <ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/style/chrissy-teigen-john-legend-baby.html/<ref>01agh (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We won't be placing the baby's name in the article, just like their other children, because WP:BLPNAME applies to non-notable minor children (alive or dead). Elizium23 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How many children?

Some editors have come to the article to increase the number of children parameter of the infobox to "3". I agree with this change. Teigen and Legend have two living children and one is deceased after the pregnancy loss. It doesn't make him any less their child. Elizium23 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The pregnancy loss is described as a miscarriage by the Associated Press, The Daily Beast, The Times, Time, New York Daily News, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Independent; no source says that it was a stillbirth. With that in mind, there needs to be a broader discussion (and consensus) on whether a miscarriage affects the infobox. Michelle Obama suffered a miscarriage prior to having her two children, so would her infobox have the number three fill in the "children" parameter? I understand this is an emotional subject, but I believe we can discuss it with an appropriate measure of objectivity. KyleJoan^talk 03:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is simpler to avoid an extended talk page discussion and just omit any information about children in her userbox. This is not uncommon with biographies. There is no intrinsic need to add information about her children and I would bet whether the number was 2 or 3, the article would face edit wars from people who disagree on this subject which would just result in pain for those who have sensitive feelings on this matter.

Information on children is often left out of infoboxes on articles of BLP unless the children themselves are notable individuals, I don't see why this needs to be included at all. I think the goal would be to avoid edit wars and the simplest way around that is to omit information about her children until they have become notable in their own right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit wars remain a possibility regardless of whether the parameter says two, three, or nothing, so a consensus that endorses one of the three options would be beneficial. That said, if there is consensus to omit, I would be in support of that. KyleJoan^talk 05:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose omission of the number of children. It is highly unusual and unfair to Teigen and Legend. Elizium23 (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus already exists to include the number of children in this infobox. The onus is on you to overturn this consensus in favor of omitting it. I oppose this proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus already exists to include the number of children in this infobox. The onus is on you to overturn this consensus in favor of omitting it. I oppose this proposal. Please use the talk page and stop edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you direct me to this consensus? Because I agree with Liz that we should omit, so at this time, it's a 2-1. KyleJoan^talk 08:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It is ridiculous for you to contend that WP:ONUS applies to placing a "2" in the "children" field. Nobody disputes that Teigen has two children. Perhaps it is disputed that she has 3, but you are disputing that she has any at all??? Nobody disputes that, you're simplying trying to avoid edit-wars(???) by denying she has any children at all??? Elizium23 (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Readers are smart. They can read the personal life section for information about her family. I was asking you to direct me to the consensus that favors putting any number of children in the infobox, which you never provided. KyleJoan^talk 08:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox person transclusions the "children" field is standard and encouraged. Omitting it in the presence of reliably-sourced information is unprecedented. Every BLP I edit has this information. Elizium23 (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Which guideline says that we are encouraged to fill in the "children" parameter? In any case, feel free to continue the discussion if you'd like to obtain the aforementioned consensus. KyleJoan^talk 08:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is currently for inclusion, you'll have to continue the discussion to build consensus against inclusion. Elizium23 (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox person documentation explains how to fill out the parameters and encourages filling in "children" with the number of children, or names of notable children. Elizium23 (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The template page does not encourage anything; it simply tells us how to appropriately fill in the parameters if we're going to include any information. And again, where is the consensus that favors putting any number of children in the infobox? If you can't provide it, then maybe stop referencing something that does not exist. KyleJoan^talk 09:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan, 311,000 transclusions of {{Infobox person}} and all editors have agreed to include the number of children in them. I include it as a matter of course wherever I edit a BLP. It has not been objected. That's consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have objected here. That's not consensus for this article in particular. KyleJoan^talk 09:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

2 vs. 311,000 isn't much WP:LOCALCON to override a project-wide consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Except we don't know how many BLPs actually fill in the "children" parameter in comparison to how many of them only elaborate on the subjects' families in prose and leave the parameter blank. KyleJoan^talk 09:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should the "children" parameter indicate in the {{Infobox person}} on this article and that of John Legend?

1. (blank)
2. 2
3. 3 Elizium23 (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

1.(blank) Rondolinda (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• (blank)HAL333 20:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• 1. (blank) per my comments above. "2" would evoke a larger debate about how pregnancy losses affect infoboxes, while "3" would violate WP:V because I have not seen reliable sources describe Teigen and Legend as having had three children. KyleJoan^talk 05:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• 2: Based on the information above, most sources say they have two children, and so saying they have three children would be WP:OR. And leaving the slot blank doesn't seem like the right decision to me if we have reliable sources giving a clear answer. Loki (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• 2: Per Loki. And if not only "2", then have a note in the infobox briefly explaining this pointing to the "personal life" section. The parameter just should not be blank per Loki. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• 1. (blank) While news sources do often refer to their two children, outlets also referred to the pregnancy loss as a loss of a child, referring to him as their son. He's cited as a couples third child by the Washington Post and the New York Times. However, given the sensitivity and tragedy of the situation, as well as the number of times the issue has been disputed pn the page, it's best to leave that level blank and have it explained in the Personal life section.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• 2. The event was described in all sources, even by the parents themselves, as a miscarriage, not a stillbirth. Yes, they sentimentally named the lost child-to-be, but there has no been report of a birth certificate, which is the only concrete proof that that was a viable child who died at birth. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• 2 In a legal sense, I suppose. Leaving it blank erases the article’s status quo and the fact she she already has two children, which without this tragedy, wouldn’t have been removed as a number to begin with. Emotionally, she may consider that she had 3 children but we don’t know for a fact. And reporters will toe the line out of respect as she revealed the assigned gender and intended name. In Elon Musk, I put that he is the father of 7 children with a note explaining that one is deceased (as he died in infancy). It’s a touchy subject but there’s a stark difference between a miscarriage and infant mortality. Trillfendi (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• 1. (blank) I agree with part of what Liz says above - we should not be discussing children of BLPs unless the children are themselves notable. I think the text of the article itself is well written, mentioning (with citations) the two children and the incidence of the stillbirth. Enough has been written about Legend/Teigen as parents to justify this part. Their kids are not their claim to fame, though, so I would prefer no mention in the infobox. Second choice would be "2". Unless/until secondary sources *in the long term* refer regularly to their three children, we should stick with 2.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 2 per the arguments made above and per reliable sources. Some1 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• 2 since there are sources saying they have two kids. Idealigic (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1 I see no reason to include the number of children in the infobox. It's not relevant to their notability. (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 2 The third one is actually a miscarriage and can't consider being an individual in terms of law or commonsense. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps not in terms of current US law, but since I am pro-life, I would consider "Baby Jack" very much an individual, a human person, and worthy of dignity, whether or not he was located inside the womb when he died. And we have plenty of evidence through RS that Teigen and Legend consider "Baby Jack" as such, and their opinion on their own baby should have a certain weight in our proceedings. Elizium23 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1 First choice, through the reasoning of Moishe Rosenbaum and Buidhe; second choice would be 2, simply the number of actual children; 3 would be WP taking a religio-political stance (a fetus is a person) which we are not permitted to do as the RS's are not reporting it that way; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

•  Comment: I have added a hidden note to the infobox requesting that the "children" parameter be left blank until this RFC is completed. The number has been changed back and forth for quite a while. I don't think it will be too much of a hardship to readers to leave it blank for a little bit longer. Mo Billings (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  In the event of a "No consensus" the proper thing to do would be to include the number "2" because the global project consensus is to include the number of children. Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Still not seeing where I can find this global project consensus. 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 Buidhe already made a similar point. KyleJoan^talk 04:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, 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)

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)

• 2 I don't see any contradiction between Legend and Teigen having two children and headlines which say "pregnancy loss of couple’s third child" (Washington Post). They had two children. They were having a third child but due to a miscarriage they did not have a third child. Now they still have two children. At no time did they have three children. I understand that people may feel differently because of religious beliefs or for other reasons, but I believe this is the common understanding of "number of children". If there needs to be a discussion about what "children" means in the context of the infobox, let's have it and use this case to start that discussion (but not here, obviously). Mo Billings (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• 2 basically per Mo Billings. No, we don't have to fill every infobox parameter, but we do want to document the important facts about someone's life, and how many children someone has had is generally of great importance to that person. We leave out the names of the children in respect of their privacy, but numbering them doesn't violate that. Miscarriages are not usually counted as children. --GRuban (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since this RFC there has been a third child, born in 2023, per the source in the article. I will update the edit notice in the infobox. Meters (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section/twitter & bullying

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)

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)

Provocative tweet

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

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)

 Not done for now: There is an explanation in the previous edit to the removal. KyleJoan 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)

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. KyleJoan^talk 02:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, 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)

Stillbirth or Abortion

This is from the BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62925701

(Fran Bosh (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC))

Bikini selfie body shaming

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)