Talk:Chrissy Teigen

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)