Talk:Tess Holliday

Critical attention

I know most articles aren't like this, but Tess has been victim to many attacks due to her weight putting her in the public spotlight. For the sake of being comprehensive, I think it's necessary to include in the article about this. I however can't fill this part of the article as I have my own personal bias on the topic

Semisufficient (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Many other controversial political/public figures have a criticism section and this article seems unacceptably biased. Thesqueegeeman (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I third this. Anyone want to try drafting up a section? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cruft information

Info about how often she works out, when the first time she wore a bikini, Instagram photos, and the like, is unabashedly WP:CRUFT. It has no place in this article, whether or not it's sourced. Unfortunately, User:Tanbircdq keeps reverting the edits. I think the listing of tattoos is over the top, but I'll concede that point since she has so many it's noticeable. But a description of her nose and lips, along with the rest of the section, is too much and should be culled. Anthony (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FutureNJGov, thank you for taking the time to explain why you repeatedly removed the content. Due to being is the largest plus-size model to be signed to a mainstream modeling agency, the subject's health has been a controversial issue therefore how often she exercises is relevant in relation to this. Wearing a bikini for the first time at the age of 21 one its own might not be relevent but it is relevant in the context of being bullied for her weight and pale skin, and the verbal abuse received about her size from her father. She is a model therefore information about her appearance is relevant. The information about the nude photos she posted online is notable enough to have received significant media coverage. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have to continually contextualize the information added, User:Tanbircdq, it's cruft. Everything is relevant in the right context; in the grander scheme of Wikipedia, however, it qualifies as unnecessary. If this were any other model, a discussion about the shape of her nose or when she wore a bikini would STILL be cruft. The fact that she's relevant for being a morbidly obese model does not negate Wikipedia rules. That's why I removed it twice, and I believe it still needs to be removed. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, which is why I brought it to the talk page, but I stand my ground. The rest of the article needs to be trimmed as well, but one step at a time. Anthony (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I was simply providing a logical justification for inclusion of the content. It appears we disagree and I have no more to add unless you're able to provide policy and guideline supporting why the content can't be included.

Also, you removed a large, long-standing section of the article without discussion. I objected to this and restored the article to the stable version. As per WP:BRD, you're instigating the change therefore the onus is on you to explain your reason for removing the content in order for me to reply. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that WP:CRUFT is not policy, but WP:NOT is, and 2.10 indicates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Again, all the facts I removed are not notable to anyone except diehard fans, and that is not the point of an article. Nor are they notable just because she's a morbidly obese model. That's why I removed them, and that's why I maintain that the information should be removed. As I said, the whole article is in need of an overhaul since it's almost entirely WP:SELFSOURCE. But I'm just trying to trim the fat here (pun intended). Anthony (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:FutureNJGov the silly details about her nose and lips are pointless. 86.155.123.215 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The details being silly are a matter of opinion, she's a model so it's not pointless at all. 86.153.74.179 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Holliday trains with a personal trainer four times a week, plus hikes and swims. In December 2015, she told People that she does not do diets as she does not believe they work" The sole purpose of these sentences is to reassure fats that diet and exercise do nothing - so no need to bother. Hardly worthy of a purported encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.49.159 (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Professional name

The subject is referred to throughout as "Hoven", her birth surname. However, she is professionally known as Tess Holliday. The article should therefore refer to her as "Holliday", to be consistent with other similar articles (for example, David Tennant is referred to as "Tennant", not "McDonald"; Fred Astaire is referred to as "Astaire", not "Austerlitz", etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.35 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there's a good reason to use Hoven, it should be changed. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed. Melonkelon (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Aside from cruft, there appears to be an excess of citations in this article. Is there any specific reason why we are ignoring WP:OVERCITE? Does it relate to some past dispute? - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it helps the editors think that what they're adding is noteworthy, even though (as I said above) it's all cruft and should be removed. But what do I know... Anthony (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

no picture

what about a pic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD2:8DDC:0:D498:178C:3C27:1332 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)