Talk:Carrie Prejean/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Prejean breast implant controversy

the fact that the pageant paid for her breast implants weeks before the pageant should be added to the page:

http://www.accesshollywood.com/shanna-moakler-confirms-pageant-organization-paid-for-carrie-prejeans-breast-implants_article_17354 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeydei (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I added the following text, I would like to discuss here before re-adding it since it was deleted as "irrelevant" TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A few weeks prior to the Miss USA pageant, Prejean received free breast implants paid for by the Miss California pageant committee. The co-director of the Miss California pageant said "We assisted when Carrie came to us and voiced the interest in having the procedure done, we want to put her in the best possible confidence in order to present herself in the best possible light on a national stage."PORNO IS PORNO YOU SICKO!!!!

It has a reliable source, so i see no reason for it not to be there. As having implants would have an impact on her career as a model and her personal life, it seems very relevant.YobMod 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the implants in the article. What more do you want?--InaMaka (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides except for a few people who are actually upset about Prejean's comments (maybe five people in the universe) most straight men find this fact to be a resume builder.--InaMaka (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reliable source that proves real men like fake boobs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think such a source exists! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Public death threat

Why is this not notable? The Squicks (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

See below. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Miss USA controversy

Let's try to keep this neutral and well sourced, people. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That means things like the comments about Alan Duncan too: According to this source [1], Duncan made an offhand remark during the taping of a TV comedy show. He joked,

"If you read that Miss California had been murdered you'll know it was me, won't you?" He later said "I'm sure she's very beautiful and that if we were to meet we would love each other. I have no plans to kill her."

This is akin to taking comments clearly intended as funny or satirical made on a show like, say, Saturday Night Live, and reporting them as news. It's inappropriate, unencyclopedic, and frankly, if reported as fact, bordering on slanderous.

To make it absolutely clear: Alan Duncan did not threaten Carrie Prejean's life. He made an offhand remark on a TV comedy show trying to get a laugh. It's barely newsworthy, and it's certainly not encyclopedia-worthy. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To make it absolutely clear: This is ONLY Exploding Boy's opinion. It is NOT fact. It is Duncan's only reason to ever be mentioned in the USA--it has made a name for his obscure self with the hate filled comments.--InaMaka (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the tone of your response, I point out that Alan Duncan is the first openly gay member of British Parliament. He's been known for a while. Charnov (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been reported in the U.S. that he was indeed making a serious statement, even if it was in the context of a comedy show. The Squicks (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He was trying to be funny in the context of a comedy show. It was not a death threat, and it's being reported in this article as if it were. This stupid remark adds absolutely nothing to the article at all, besides confusion. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments in this "controversy" section have been carefully crafted to present Ms. Prejean in the most negative light possible, carefully selecting facts and omiting others. Shame on Wikipedia! -- Rico 04:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain, maybe with some examples? It helps to get a details of what you don't like, otherwise we have no idea. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it notable that "Hilton called Prejean's answer 'the worst in pageant history,'"? Is Hilton a pageant historian? -- Rico 04:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say its notable because of the 100's of media stories about Hilton's reaction to the Prejean comment. Also because we shouldn't carefully crop 1 side of the story and expand the other side! Lets put them both out there, all of the nasty tactless comments of both sides, give a full picture of the situation and let the reader decide. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why isn't it in there that Hilton called Carrie Prejean a "dumb bitch," or does that expose Hilton for what he is, rather than paint him as a thoughtful person? -- Rico 04:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see that in there, and added them in, but it was quickly reverted with a nasty edit summary. Other editors have taken a different track, citing concerns that the comments are too mean towards Ms Prejean. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it notable that, "He stated that "There are various other ways she could have answered that question and still stayed true to herself without alienating millions of people'" -- or do we just want that idea in there? -- Rico 04:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Because we want to provide the proper context and not chop up his quotes to make it look like something it wasn't. If we don't provide his reasons we violate NPOV. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So we quote his groundless opinion, and then the substantiation that doesn't substantiate it? -- Rico 04:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, thats the way it should work. Althought we should leave off any indication that it does or does not substantiate his opinion, and leave off all wording calling his opinion groundless as all those things would be serious NPOV violations. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this 'encyclopedia' article,

Prejean stated that she was told by Miss California USA pageant officials that 'You need to not talk about your faith' and was pressured to apologize for her statement. A spokesperson for the Miss California Pageant denied these claims and accused Prejean of lying.

Wikipedia

I read the sources (both newspaper articles). What I don't see is any evidence that corroborates the spokesperson's claim that Miss Prejean lied.
Taking that into consideration, is it worthy of inclusion that somebody said Miss Prejean lied?
Is this trivia in our (your) 'encyclopedia' article just to establish that Miss Prejean may have lied (or may not have)?
Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, nor a vehicle for propaganda. I see no attempt on the part of some editors to describe Carrie Prejean from a neutral point of view, just continual attempts to get anything that makes Miss Prejean look bad included (the worst in pageant history, liar, fake) -- using very flimsy justifications, like 'somebody said it,' 'it was in the paper,' or 'I found it on Google Docs.'
Editors that want to convince people of the merits of such views might wish to start a blog or visit a forum.
Miss Prejean stirred passions when she was asked for her opinion, gave it, and some people hated her answer.
Some editors are doing an excellent job pretending to be good Wikipedians -- referring to neutrality, NPOV and AGF -- while passionately finding excuses to include information in this article that tarnishes Miss Prejean's reputation, and then defending those decisions as if they're not really passionate about it (just objective and logical). The amount of effort they're putting into the defense of every derogatory detail is revealing.
Actions speak louder than words.
We, that aren't simply out to slag Miss Perjean, should strive to include in this article only that which will not quickly become incredibly trivial. Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
The scandal mongering and gossip being included in this article is appalling. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard.
Including in the article that somebody said Miss Prejean lied -- in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, does not meet that standard.
"What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" states, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. [...] News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. [...] Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." In my opinion, that includes things that certain people have said about Miss Prejean, even if they were published in the paper.
Now that scandal occupies a majority of the real estate in this article, it borders on being an article about an event, and there is already a POV fork for that.
That makes it less important that tendentious editors can rebut (sometimes shockingly unpersuasively) each and every concern I or others might have about how Wikipedia is being used to slag Miss Prejean here, and game. The form that the article, as a whole, has taken matters.
Our coverage of the Carrie Prejean 'controversy' should be limited to significant information that will be important enough in the future, to be included in an encyclopedia -- and be in proportion to the importance of the overall topic: Carrie Prejean.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information also states, "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized." That is what is happening in this article.
Some of this may be suitable for Wikinews. -- Rico 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points Rico. You nailed it to the wall. Too many editors are not being neutral whatsoever in regards to Carrie Prejean and are not following Wikipedia policy. I shall say no more here, the price of retaliation on wiki is too high. Caden ^{is cool} 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much exactly what I said below. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break: responding to Rico's concerns

Rico asked: Why is it notable that "Hilton called Prejean's answer 'the worst in pageant history,'"? Is Hilton a pageant historian?

My view: He may not be a pageant historian, but he was a judge in the relevant contest and is a central figure in the controversy, whose widely-reported remarks (including this one) form a central part of the controversy. It's a statement that could never be substantiated, it's hyperbolic, and it certainly does Hilton's credibility no favours; nevertheless, it's what he said. We're not reporting it as fact (and it was never presented as such in the article): only as the opinion and widely reported statement of one of the controversy's central figures.

Rico asked: Then why isn't it in there that Hilton called Carrie Prejean a "dumb bitch," or does that expose Hilton for what he is, rather than paint him as a thoughtful peron?

My view: Largely because one editor doesn't want it there and has made it clear he will remove any mention of it on sight. I think it should be there: again, it's a large part of the controversy, it's what was said, it's what many commentators were responding to. As you say, it doesn't do Hilton's credibility any favours.

Rico asked: Why is it notable that, "He stated that "There are various other ways she could have answered that question and still stayed true to herself without alienating millions of people'" -- or do we just want that idea in there?

My view: Several reasons: first of all, it's what he said. Second, he and his supporters are claiming that this, rather than her opinion about marriage, is the reason he gave her a low score, while Prejean and her supporters claim otherwise. Third, this remark was part of the controversy. And fourth, it was widely reported.

Rico asked: So we quote his groundless opinion, and then the substantiation that doesn't substantiate it?

My view: the entire issue is based on opinion. His opinion is relevant since he was a judge in the pageant and since (it's being claimed) it was the low score he awarded her in response to his question that lost her the crown. In any case, it's not up to us to decide whether or not anyone's opinion is groundless or to prove their opinion right or wrong, only to report the facts.

This is actually the central problem in this whole dispute: the controversy is entirely based on the personal opinions, comments and actions of its primary figures: He said this, she said that; he said something then recanted it then said something worse, and on and on. The incident really isn't encyclopedic at all, but it's in the news currently and people want to report on it. So, the problem becomes how to report on this unencyclopedic event in an encyclopedic way. Fortunately, we have established guidelines: we present both sides of the story neutrally, factually (based on reliable sources), and with equal weight, and we don't attempt to draw conclusions for our readers or lead them to any judgement.

Phrasing the controversy as "Hilton made some negative remarks, then Prejean said A, B, C, D and E" is not giving equal weight. If we're going to report on the incident at all, we should be reporting what actually happened and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the "he said, she said" part of it isn't that far off of balanced. (And "dumb bitch" doesn't belong there any more than "fascist" does -- I think Hilton's point comes across without it.) In my opinion, the major unbalance actually comes with the next paragraph, which is a short rundown of criticisms of Hilton, but nowhere are the references to people other than Hilton who criticized Prejean -- and there were quite a few. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What prominence should any remarks be given?

I just restored the removal of Hilton's remarks about the immediate controversy. I'm not going to re-restore them if they're deleted again, because I am NOT going to get into an edit war, but I hope that at least there will be discussion before they're touched.
The remarks are fairly short, free of obscenity, referenced, and if Prejean's comments about what happened are going to be in here, which they should, at least having Hilton's views which she is partially responding to provides balance.
This article is here neither to bash Prejean or to promote her -- it's to describe who she is, why she is notable, and what happened to her. For a major controversy in her life such as this, its important to be balanced and present both sides, letting the reader form opinions on her own. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a long discussion on the BLP incident page that talks about this exact topic: Carrie Prejean.--InaMaka (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that Hilton's awful comments about b----, c---, and so on should be kept. The fact that he reacted in such a vocal manner is a direct and notable part of the whole controversy.

As far as Prejean is concerned, I would say that- if anything- such attacks by Perez Hilton would make her seem better of. After all, her being attacked by Perez is like Ralph Nader angrily calling Barack Obama a 'negro' (naturally, your empathy goes out to Obama). The Squicks (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well heck, if you're gonna put what some gossip blogger says about this, then I'm adding what Donald Trump said about it. Just did that now. Feel free to change any wording...and a link should be added for the Miss Universe Organization and for Donald Trump. SP4 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• The gossip blogger was one of the two central people in the controversy, and his remarks were a major part of it. Trump's remarks, as the owner of the pageant, are a useful thing to add, though, IMO. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• I fixed the reference you added, added another sentence, and moved things around a bit. We still need some balance from people who criticized her, I think. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the last Miss USA that criticized Prejean seem worth including. The Squicks (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments left on my talk page that should have been here

Hi, I'm asking you to discuss any proposed changes you would like to make to the Miss USA 2009 controversy section of the Carrie Prejean article on that article's talk page. There is a discussion already going on there that you should join. Please do not make wholesale reversions or reinsert questionable information without discussing first. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that I have inserted is questionable. Exploding Boy keeps removing the comments of Prejean and limiting the discussion of the Miss USA controversy to the obviously demented viewpoint of Hilton only. This article is about PREJEAN and she should be given an opportunity to respond to Hilton's negative, hate-mongering comments. Dear Exploring Boy, do not remove the fully reliably sourced, notable comments of Prejean about the controversy in which Projean is the main character. Otherwise the article biased.--InaMaka (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I left the comment on your talk page to ensure you saw it and because it is directed at you. I'm still asking you to discuss proposed changes.

I have not been removing Prejean's comments at all, but please be aware that there is no function of Wikipedia that allows it to be used as a forum for article subjects to respond to comments made about them. Our goal here is to provide relevant, encyclopedic information neutrally. That means we give both sides equal space and make no judgements. This section is getting far too long as it is: it's threatening to take over the entire article, and most of it can probably be trimmed back considerably. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with InaMaka. EB please stop and remember NPOV. Thanks. Caden ^{is cool} 07:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Miss USA 09

Please join the discussion at Talk:Miss USA 2009#Merge "controversy" with Carrie Prejean article?, where editors are trying to hash out a solution to the explosion of information on this incident that are taking over Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

leaked nude pics is it fake or real?

sources:

http://www.accesshollywood.com/talespin-miss-california-nude-pics-could-be-coming_article_17529 http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-05-what-would-jesus-say-about-this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.100.93 (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

they are real and she's going to lose her crown over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealTimeName (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A better question: will liberal Wikipedia editors treat these "topless" modeling photos differently than the way they treated Miley Cyrus' topless modeling photos. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we will have 504 words of text for the incident, but it all depends on if Miss Prejean and her people address the issue or not. Please see [2] for the Miley Cyrus stuff. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm betting that making the section read: "The photo shows Prejean with her bare back exposed but her front covered with her arms" and "Though the pictures left an impression that she was bare-breasted, Prejean was facing away from the camera, using her arms to cover her front, and was actually not topless" will not fly here despite those sentences being lifted directly from Miley Cyrus' article and made to fit this one. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments here were later removed

Please GO BACK TO 4CHAN.

Thank you. The Squicks (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that, while I don't necessarily agree with how it's been done (InaMaka and TharsHammer are both now technically in violation of WP:3RR on this talk page), it's a good point that both the original anonymous comment and InaMaka's edit summary violate WP:CIVIL. Similarly, the original comment isn't really related to improving the article. As such, there is a decent case that InaMaka was right in removing it, per WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted". John Darrow (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The original comment was related to improving the article, asking if it should be listed as a current event because of the picture controversy. Deleting the entire comment and labeling it as "facist" is beyond the pale. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling all Mormoms stupid is a fascist comment and I will continue to point that out and I will not apologize and I will not stop. If you wanted the productive comment in the discussion then you simply could have re-inserted the productive comment under your name. You did not have to re-insert the fascist, narrow-minded, stupid, nasty, un-called-for, BLP violating comments of the anon sockpuppet. There is no place for those comments. Yes, one little tiny pieces was a productive comment, but you could picked up that line of thought and attributed to yourself. You did not need to repeat the fascist comments also. Look if you want to be productive, then be productive but re-inserting the fascist comments is not helpful and with Exploding Boy assisting you re-inserting these fascist comments it makes me wonder if you are the sockpuppet or if Exploding Boy is or if you are one in the same. Why do you (or Exploding Boy for that matter) feel the need to re-insert the nasty, fascist, narrow-minded stuff??? Why not just more forward with the one, little, tiny productive question that was asked??? I will remove it again and I will call it fascist again and I will not apologize. As for the comments of John Darrow above let me note that removing violations of BLP is never counted as a violation of 3RR. That is a fact, look it up.--InaMaka (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well they weren't my comments so why would I re-add them under my name? That would make no sense at all. Also two people disagree with your labeling of other users comments as "facist" doesn't hint at sockpuppetry, it hints at your uncivil nature. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To the point of the IP's edit, no I do not think this article should have a current event tag. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You want to know what does NOT make any sense at all??? The fact that you feel the need to re-insert comments that clearly violate BLP AND your undying defense that the information MUST be on this talk page just because the anon sockpuppet asked one little, tiny question with any relevance at all. That is totally illogical. Also, you know what else makes no sense the amount time and effort that you have put into jamming those fascist, nasty, mean, stupid comments back into this talk page. You don't agree with my comments that is the crux of the issue, nothing else. If you re-insert the violation of BLP I will remove it again.--InaMaka (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Much longer and this will start looking like a candidate for WP:LAME. John Darrow (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to slip on my administrator's hat for a minute. This conversation is in violation of our policy on civility. Everyone needs to keep cool and stop commenting on other editors. If this continues, one or both of you could be blocked. That being said, InaMaka is correct in the removal of the comments. They're trolling, plain and simple. Don't reinsert them. AniMate^talk 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking whether a current events tag is warranted is not trolling, and I don't think the question has been addressed. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that Mormons should not edit pages is obviously trolling. Also, note the typical 4chan terminology. The Squicks (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(Admin hat still on) Asking if a current events tag is warranted is not trolling. The Mormon comment clearly was. Adding the 4chan picture, also not cool. Be adults, be neutral, and edit responsibly. AniMate^talk 08:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to my other admin posts, I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a battleground. We are here to write a neutral article, not fight over Prejean's statements, Hilton's statements, or gay marriage. So, no more inserting of problematic talk page edits, no more calling editors fascists, and no more incivility. AniMate^talk 08:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by Alan Duncan

This section really does not belong in this article. As far as I can tell, she has never even responded to them; we don't need to include everything anyone has ever said about a person in the article about them, and his comments are discussed in his article already. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perez Hilton

Perez Hilton is the sort of person who incurs extremely strong and polarized reactions from people, either positive or negative. But that is no excuse to call him anything or to accuse him of anything. He is a 'living person' and talk pages are not the place for this kind of bashing. He is not a ____ or whatever word one would like to call him. The Squicks (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. AniMate^talk 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that should be a given. Could somebody please be bold and clean up this talk page, archiving whatever is not directly related to discussion of the article? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Imagine a photo of Perez interviewing Prejean. Now ask yourself, "How many artificial boobs do you see in this photo?" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please redact that inappropriate comment about a living person. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Darn it Bugs, I LOLed. The Squicks (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nude photos again

The unreferenced statement: "Despite Prejean's assurances that only a single semi-nude photo was taken, a second photo surfaced on the same web site on May 6." should be taken out of the article. This statement is not referenced (I am not doubting the second photo, only the 1st half of the sentence.) Furthermore, this statement directly contradicts a quote in the article by Ms Prejean "Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith." TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually did some digging around, and according to FoxNews [3] this would appear to be a different issue. Apparently, she is saying this photo has been digitally altered, while "The Dirty" blog is saying there are more explicit photos to come. It also appears that she told pageant officials that there was only one semi-nude photo of her, so this might merit inclusion. AniMate^talk 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Who goes to a photo shoot and takes only one picture though? Are you going to get the whole thing set up, get into the outfit, get the lighting setup, then the photog is only going to take one shot? Really. I think given her wording above about "photos" that she is expressing there was only one photo shoot, at which there were multiple photos taken. The 2nd photo has her wearing the same pink panties and features the same setting, clearly the same photo shoot. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Her statement said "Photos". Personally, I believe that we should hold out of adding any text that directly calls Prejean a liar since this is a new and developing issue. We don't know the details. Thars is also right in that, why on earth would people only take a photo at a shoot? The Squicks (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the description of her photo ("On May 4, 2009, a photograph of Prejean partially nude with her back turned to the camera... ") is still awkward. I think I would describe it as "A partially nude photo exposing a breast." In essence, that is what's creating the furor. It isn't so much that she's wearing transparent panties or that she's facing toward or away from the camera, it's that you can see her boob...non? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it is awkward, but we use that phrasing/wording since that is how the source puts it. The Squicks (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

She exposed part of the side of a breast. She did not show the breast itself. A situation like this would be fine in a PG-13 movie or on general television. The Squicks (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted that portion again...SP4 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

?????Well...if a guy partially fell out of his pants, I might say, "Uh, your d&ck is exposed!" Or if someone's pants were partially ripped, you could say "Hello, we can see your @ss!" To my thinking, her breast is definitely exposed. That pose exposes her breast. But, I understand you are following a published description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not acceptable "for general TV". The TV news shows fuzzed it out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, there were TWO sets of pictures released, one from TheDirty and one from TMZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tags

Much of my discussion of my concerns and disputes thus far has been located in the Miss USA controversy section, the Undue weight section, in the Carrie Prejean section of the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, and in TharsHammar's unsuccessful edit warring report, the second BLP notice, the RFC concerning Perez Hilton's criticism(s), and the Problem tags section.
Others have written in other sections. -- Rico 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

EL section

Does anyone else think the "Miss LaJolla USA" and "Miss Greater San Diego USA" succession boxes are unnecessary? The "Miss California USA" box is great, but I don't think the Miss LaJolla USA pageant, Elly Garner, or Katie Bestebreurtje will meet notability requirements for their own articles (no offense to Ms. Elly or Ms. Katie). The red links just kind of stick out and make that area of the page look odd. APK straight up now tell me 07:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two questions here=

(a)Is the fact that she was Miss San Diego and Miss La Jolla notable in the context of Prejean's life?

(b)Do those topics merit pages in and of themselves?

I think that the answer to the former is a yes and the latter is a no. The Squicks (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are notable aspects of her life and you should be mentioned in the article, but the two boxes look bad. APK straight up now tell me 07:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone familiar with those pageants wants to mention her titles in the "Pageants" section (with a RS), that would be great. Then we could possibly remove the two boxes. APK straight up now tell me 08:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Breast Implants

Not important. Not notable. Let's see: a beauty pageant contestant has breast implants, is it really so amazing??? No. Is it really amazing that the pageant directors raised money to pay for them because they wanted to win??? No. Why is this notable?? It isn't. Its only purpose is to make a mountain out of a molehill over something that Prejean did and place her in the worst possible light. It is something that ALL pageant contestants think about doing (and Hollywood actresses) some chose to and some don't because they don't have the money. The pageant directors that are criticizing her are the same people that paid for them. And Wikipedia is repeating the hypocritical complaining of the pageant directors without placing it in context. As a matter of fact it was placed in the article in the first section of the coverage of her pageant days. It is not notable.--InaMaka (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It has a reliable source, so i see no reason for it not to be there. As having implants would have an impact on her career as a model and her personal life, it seems very relevant. From BLP, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I believe that the reasoning I copied from an above thread clearly makes the case for the inclusion of this material. Also remember to focus on the article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a big believer in carefully following WP:BLP, but I don't see what the problem is with mentioning her breast implants. Also, there's nothing wrong with quoting people being hypocritical. If we weren't allowed to do that we'd never be able to quote any politicians ;-) And the quote that you removed didn't seem to be criticizing her anyway. But if you think their comments are taken out of context then find a reliable source that includes the context and add it to the article! :-) Please don't remove reliable sourced information about a subject because it may portray them in a poor light. If there is another side to the issue (or the person) -- please spend the time/energy to add in that other additional information to balance out the article.Hoping To Help (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if didn't quote hypocrites then there would be no politicians quoted. I just don't see the point of quoting the pageant officials or a topic that is either not notable at all or it has so little notability that it is almost non-existent. And yes I can and I will removed reliable sourced information if violates BLP. Don't assume that ALL reliably sourced information must go in the article because it doesn't. It if reliably sourced information is not notable then it is NOT worthy of inclusion. The silly direct quote of the pageant officials is NOT notable and has been appropriately removed.--InaMaka (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What I don't see is why the heck the breast implants should be given so much weight. It seems clearly like undue weight to me.

The fact that she had implants is worth mentioning only in maybe a sentence.

Writing a paragraph or so about how wonderful her chest is makes no sense. Is this a vitally important, crucial thing in the big scheme of her life? No. The Squicks (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We will need a WP:RS to verify the claim that her chest is wonderful. On a serious note what do you propose as a paired down version? Also to counter-act the weight issue we could expand the bio to include more about Ms. Prejean. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can trust consensus on that one. I heard this sort of thing is pretty standard, can anyone verify or deny that other states have paid for surgery for their candidates? - Schrandit (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The section was cut down. The Squicks (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The cutting down looks good and I think will helps with the undue weight concerns. I adjusted it a little bit to make it clear that the pageant paid for the implants as opposed to providing them. Hoping To Help (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar - I thought you were going to volunteer to undertake some field-level WP:OR on the quality of her breasts ...  ;-) Hoping To Help (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of the fakes. Also the cutting down looks good, thanks Squicks. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the section looks fine now. The Squicks (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This IS an important topic, as at least some Christian writers have noted the hypocrisy of a Christian flaunting her body. [4] "The fakery that produced the body of this woman is the embodiment of the fakery of the false church in America that is in bed with the world." That strikes me as a fairly strong denunciation from the right wing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. The article quotes a blogger which we don't know anything about. It is ONE opinion in a world of millions and millions of evangelical Christians. It seems to me to be a stretch to put way too much weight on the opinion of one BLOGGER about whom we know nothing. We don't even know if this so-called evangelical blogger is even a Christian, much less an evangelical Christian. And what does it add to a BIOGRAPHY of Carrie Prejean's life other than an attempt to focus on her breasts. It seems sexist. It also seems to be a biased attack on her religion. Do we write sections on every Hollywood actress that has her boobs done?? No. Why should be even focus on this because of the comments of one anon blogger quoted in a thinly read section of USA Today? We shouldn't.--InaMaka (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as recentism and sensationalism. We're writing her biography and this is a pretty non-notable event. Imagine it's ten years from now. Will this really be a notable development. AniMate^draw 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Only as notable as the subject itself. You're missing the point - that at least some Christian groups are NOT supportive of this beauty queen, on the grounds that she's using sex to sell Christianity. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, it is the opinion of ONE blogger, who may or may not be a Christian. You are assuming that the blogger is a Christian and even if the blogger is a Christian it ONE opinion, not "some Christian group" as you claim above. One anon blogger who may or may not be a Christian, but at any rate is NOT famous or important. The blogger's opinion is NOT notable. Also, do not use this one blogger's solitary opinion to argue that there are "Christian groups" that do not agree with her because that is false.--InaMaka (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No one, not even Sarah Palin, is universally supported by the Christian right. Find multiple reliable sources discussing this in depth and perhaps you can show notability. AniMate^draw 19:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is that the media is painting it that she's aligned with the Christian right and anti-gay, and it's not that simple. You've got this beauty queen flaunting her body while allegedly being a devout Christian. Something does not compute here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source that says she is anti-gay, or just anti gay marraige?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, redact that now. You will treat Prejean and every other subject covered by BLP with respect. Fail to do so again, and I'll block you. You're doing some fine original research here, but until you can find some in depth sources discussing this, we shouldn't include your theory. AniMate^draw 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. And it's not MY theory, it was a link provided from an article in USAToday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I already redacted it. Or do you also have a problem with "beauty queen"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You found one opinion piece supporting this. We handle our BLPs with extra care, and until this becomes a widely discussed issue, we shouldn't be inserting this into the article. Additionally, the implants still aren't exactly notable in the grand scheme of things. Tread carefully here. (Additionally, there were some delays on this end, and hadn't checked here when I posted on your talk.) AniMate^draw 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I happened to run into it from the USAToday article. I come from the branch of Christianity that agrees with that opinion, although in this debauched nation it seems to be an increasingly minority opinion. I'll see if anything else is out there that addresses this matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the whole posting that are referring to. It is one blogger who does not even give their name, an e-mail address, or any other identifiable information. It is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. It could be someone who wants to pretend to be an evangelical Christian. There is NO reliability to this source and it is not notable.--InaMaka (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The blog in question is Slice of Laodicea, [5] and you can see the blog post here. The blogger who writes that blog does give their name Ingrid Schlueter, provides a picture, a bio, contact information, and indicates they have 20 years in the Christian Broadcasting world. I am not weighing in on wheter the material should be in the article, only clarifying who the blogger is. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. This is one blog. There is one opinion piece that has discussed this. For this to become notable we're going to need some really good reliable sources discussing this. Even then, it might not be acceptable for this, per WP:BLP, so let's keep things in perspective. AniMate^draw 22:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that everything connected with the subject's controversy is based on opinions. And it's not so much about the fake boobs, it's about flaunting one's body. It might surprise you to know that there are still many Christians who believe in modesty - and that there are many liberals who believe in modesty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Until we see more sources criticizing Prejean from the prospective of Christians who think that Beauty Paegents are inherently immoral (I'm sure they would prefer to keep their women veiled and not driving cars and not talking too loud and so on), I favor keeping such things out of the article.

After all fundamentalist Muslims have blasted moderate Muslims such as Fareed Zakaria for their behavior, but we don't include that on their pages. Undue weight and fringe sourcing concerns apply there and here. The Squicks (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, how is this any different from HIV positive 'bareback' catcher Andrew Sullivan encouraging gays to be monogamous and to use condoms, or to {former} cocaine user Barack Obama encouraging young black men to be responsible and forward thinking, or to Halliburton stock investor Michael Moore criticizing the Bush people, and so on?

The message here is, Everybody lies. Everybody. The Squicks (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting opinion from a writer in the right-leaning World Net Daily that goes into more details criticizing the lionizing of a bikini beauty who claims to be Christian: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96305] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that the same World Net Daily that claims that my mother's eating of certain types of beans during pregnancy might make me gay? The Squicks (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Silly goose, its soy that makes you gay! Didn't you read the 6 part expose [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327]. Yes, WND is far out fringe and should not be represented as anything main-stream. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, she also ate a lot of peanuts before she had my little brother. I wonder if that will make him end up a shemale... The Squicks (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that they speak for Christians is like saying kkk.com speaks for Texans. The Squicks (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WND itself does not necessarily speak for Christians, but the columnist who wrote that piece speaks for many. If it weren't for the distraction of the gay marriage question, they would have spoken out more forcefully. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the distraction of the gay marriage question, they would have spoken out more forcefully. Any evidence for this? It seems just like your own opinion. The Squicks (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the columnist who wrote that piece speaks for many. He speaks for far right-wing extremist Christians, sure. Are they notable here? No. The Squicks (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They are no further right than the opponents of same-sex marriage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WND is not a reliable source. AniMate^draw 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that WND is a reliable source. I'm saying that your argument, that Christians aren't bothered by this alleged Christian flaunting her body, is not true. Most Christians that I know believe in modesty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But this is wikipedia. The question here is not: "How do we find out the objective truth?" The question here is: "What does the reliable sources say?"

And I have yet to see the kind of reliable source that is needed to insert these claims. The claims may very well be true. It may very well be that most Christians of the world oppose beauty pageants. But we need evidence for this, not opinions. I know plenty of slutty Christians personally, but I'm not about to add that in. The Squicks (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another Christian site criticizing this woman for appealing to the carnal. [6] As more info about her comes out, I think you're going to see more of this kind of criticism popping up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

'If', 'as', 'when'... these are all vague futuristic terms. Look, if I see anything at all that is soundly reliable in the future that follows this line of argument, than I will cite it in this article. But I can't until I see it. The Squicks (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

According to wp:reliable guidelines, I don't think the Huffington Post is a reliable source. Phil_burnstein (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I've cited an MSNBC/Access Hollywood story instead that satisfies reliable sourcing. AniMate^draw 09:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I came to this page specifically to find out if it was true that she'd had breast implants. I'd previously assumed that would automatically disqualify beauty pageant contestants. --Ml66uk2 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How to determine what to include: breast implants, leaked pics, people's comments about her, etc.

The issue of notability and how to measure undue weight is an interesting one. In the case of Prejean I would say what makes her notable is the controversy and the high emotions that get expressed in reaction to what she says, does or just represents.

Yes, lots of people get breast implants ... AND lots of people are against gay marriage. Neither of which is particularly notable. What is notable (as evidenced by it getting published in reliable sources) is that people are having such strong reactions to her (or to the things they believe she does or should represent). To me, the heated arguments on this talk page is a reflection of the high emotional charge that exist around this issue in the real world. So when Fox News is reporting that a Village Voice columnist stated on MSNBC that the Pageant paid to "cut off her penis" and likens her to a Nazi war criminal that killed 4000 people [[7]] -- then that's a sign that an otherwise (arguably) non-notable event in her life has become notable.

I think some people are using the wrong yard stick for notability and undue weight. Such as contrasting the how the Wikipedia articles on her and John Edwards their respective controversies. Since Edwards would be famous/notable even if he had never been involved in a "controversy". While Prejean is notable mainly because of the various controversies surrounding her. If she had just been runner up in the Miss USA contest there probably wouldn't be a Wikipedia article about her at all she wouldn't be nearly as famous.

In summary, if multiple reliable sources are writing about it -- then it is probably a good candidate to include in someway. It's not our job to exclude it because of how we feel about her or how we feel it will make her look. It's also not our job to include something about her or point out something about her that isn't already being written about by reliable sources. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This whole story is soon going to become irrelevant, as the California organization has lots of issues with her, and even if Trump doesn't dump her, they've already arranged for the California runner-up to basically assume her role. [8] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how what you say is true. The whole point I was making is that her notability is mainly based on her controversy and people's off the charts reaction to her. I think she left the California Pageant organization -- not the other way around. It looks like she decided it was a better career move to follow the controversy and speak out at non-approved public events (in apparent violation of her contract) -- than participate in the activities they had planned for her.

I'm trying neither to defend nor condemn her. I happen to be pro same-sex marriage, and I'm more of an unrepentant heathen than a Christian. While I strongly disagree with her opinions, I do find many people's reaction to her over the top. And, I believe that the extremeness of the reactions is why she is getting so much press coverage and a key to her current notability.

I also happen to think that the best career move she could make is to ride these controversies until some better opportunity for fame and fortune comes along.

Let's look at Vanessa Lynn Williams as an example. She lost her Miss America Crown in 1984.

1. She's the only Miss America winner I can name.
2. She's become a successful actor and singer. And although I can't prove it, I believe the controversy helped kick start her career. Being famous opens doors and helps you get auditions/sales meetings/job interviews.
3. And the most objective observation, and one that especially relates to what we're doing here: Her Wikipedia bio still has seven paragraphs on the controversy -- even after more than 20 years has passed. The same number of paragraphs are devoted to issues related to her loosing the crown -- as are devoted to her professional singing career (which spans over 20 years).

Hoping To Help (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming Prejean actually wanted to be famous, she should send a "Thank You" note to Perez Hilton for giving her a huge career boost. And don't rule out the possibility that this whole "controversy" was staged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"…the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants" writes Ann Coulter in Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California. "Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news." Regarding the release of genuine "semi-nude" photos, Ann adds: "Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.)" Asteriks (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Typical Coulter distortion and spin. So what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is what Coulter has to say significant or notable? No. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No. But now that the contest is over, maybe Prejean could do the Christian thing and donate her implants to a needy woman. Or at least tithe them. Even at 1/10th, I'm sure Coulter would benefit. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote proposed on implants issue. Arbol25 (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight threatens to make Carrie Prejean and controversy -- and all that is negative about this living person -- one and the same

The majority -- most -- of this article is devoted to the vilification of a living person.

According to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, ...

Wikipedia

Per WP:NPOV, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia."

The Carrie Prejean biography of a living person gives undue weight to controversial aspects of Miss Prejean's Miss USA pageant answer, and the subsequent unleashing of the hounds of hell on her.

Wikipedia requires that this be given "a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" (Carrie Prejean), if it's worthy of inclusion at all.

Most of what Carrie Prejean is, is not her answer and the subsequent fallout.

Wikipedia is not a repository for all of the demeaning details that homosexual marriage advocates and/or vilifiers wish to store here. Please note that -- per NPOV -- it's irrelevant if they are, "verifiable and sourced statements," if they violate Undue weight.

The debate going on about the detail overlooks that the "depth of detail, quantity of text," etc. violates Undue weight -- and turns the overall article into an attack page!

Wikipedia is not a place for same-sex marriage advocates to try to trash 21-year-old Carrie Prejean's reputation, just because they didn't like her answer! -- Rico 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of what Ms Prejean is notable for is the so called "opposite marriage" answer and the subsequent fallout. There is not an excessive coverage of this event in her article, if you feel it has undue weight why not try bringing the rest of the young woman's bio up to par so that this issue will receive the proper weight. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. If you look at the page history, it was merely a redirect to Deal or No Deal models or some such, until the Miss USA thing came up. If not for that controversy, she would remain a redirect. It is, in fact, the controversy that makes her "notable". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TharsHammar. Additionally, I don't see how the article vilifies her. I actually think that if your goal is to make her look good the best thing you can do is include the over the top attacks against her. Such attacks are probably why she's the only person against same sex marriage that Newsom has publicly defended.

Also, I agree that "what Carrie Prejean is " IS different from what is covered in this article. But our job isn't to do original research (WP:OR and write about the true essence of the person. Where the Wikipedia guidelines say: "a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" -- It doesn't mean how significant it is to her -- it means how significant it is to the "subject" which is the public topic of Carrie Prejean. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

this page is incorrect; as she is no longer Miss California and Tami Farrell has replaced her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.32.46 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Whether or not her crown will be removed is up to Trump, and is still up in the air. The Squicks (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this story [9] whether she gets dumped by Trump or not, she's effectively been marginalized by the California organization in favor of Tami Farrell, and that's probably what the IP was getting at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... The term 'marginalize' is pretty vague. Either she has the crown/title or she doesn't. Admittedly, of course, the fact that the California people are not happy with her actions is beyond dispute. But it seems misleading to say that she was "replaced" or "eliminated" or "deposed" or whatever word like that you can think of. She can be unpopular de facto while still holding de jure status. The Squicks (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More than "unpopular". According to the article, her role has effectively been taken away and handed to the runner-up, thus rendering her title in name only. The only way she'll stay in the news is by becoming a lackey for the right wing. In fact, according to the article, that's already happening, and it's one of their issues with her. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In another interesting twist, she's telling Dobson that the devil was tempting her when Perez asked her that question. [10] No word on whether the devil was tempting her when she posed topless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, my primary concern is this= What is true officially? Officially, she has her title. All of these various unofficial under the cover things are problematic with BLP since (a)This is a developing story and Wikipedia is not news and (b)A lot of it is hearsay and innuendo. The fact that the pageant people has issues with her is already mentioned. Any further additional details need to have more clear-cut evidence behind them. The Squicks (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't disagree. However, since this story is changing day to day, you might want to put a "current event" tag on the article. This brouhaha began in late April, and without this ongoing story, this article would have remained a simple redirect to Deal or No Deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow. The Donald has a presser scheduled for tomorrow. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He defended Miss USA a couple of years ago, conditionally. However, this one is not Miss USA, so that will give him more latitude. Plus there's no "rehab" he can send her to in this case. The world will wait with breathless anticipation. :0 Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of Carrie Prejean. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
It's certainly not a place for comments like, "No word on whether the devil was tempting her when she posed topless."
This is a slag, and Carrie Prejean is a living person. -- Rico 15:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How can one discuss notability without discussing this lame "controversy" (including the allegations of hypocrisy which are at the heart of the controversy)? I'd ask how the remarks made at a Donald Trump presser are relevant to notability, but then again that's the same question, isn't it? Marginally notable, and only for the controversy created by others (who thinks anyone will care a month from now?) Redirect to a stub with links to Deal/No Deal, Trump and Perez Hilton. Steveozone (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the contributors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants would disagree with you about the winner of Miss California USA failing notability. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Add that link to the stub, too. Will anyone notice anything more than that a month from now? Steveozone (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice how many redlinks there are in that list. And without this controversy, Prejean's link would have remained a redirect to Deal or No Deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice how many redlinks there are for winners after wikipedia took off? None. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because of the continual skirting of the "not news" quideline. They only have articles because they were current at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just listened to the answer several times and as we have it bosted here, it is not what she said. We have posted:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

What was said:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Ummm, we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.

Video here
Eurbani (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good example of reverting based on WP:BLP concerns

I wanted to practice catching someone doing something right!

I believe that The Squicks was correctly following WP:BLP guidelines when s/he made this revert [[11]]. Good job!  :-)

I believe the original addition to the article violated WP:BLP because:

1. WP:Reliability: TMZ isn't a particularly reliable source. Given that it's kind of a high end gossip site -- it's job it to write about many of the things that we want to keep out of Wikipedia articles on living people. (Or, at least, we want to keep out until more reliable sources uncover enough supporting information that they choose to write about it as well.)
2. WP:Libel: The quote is claiming a particular fact (that the semi-nude photos were taken after her 18 birthday). Thereby implying she was lying when she said she was under 18 when the photos were taken. Statements of fact (if wrong) can be libelous. While statements of opinion generally aren't in danger of being ruled libelous -- and so we don't have to be nearly so careful about including statements of opinion.
3. WP:Verifiability: The quote is from an unnamed source -- which makes it impossible to verify whether the comment itself was ever actually made. Much less if the content of the comment is objectively true. Thereby violating WP:Verifiability, one of the three central tenants of WP:BLP -- and making it classic gossip: "Someone told me _____ about Person Y, but I can't tell you who told me."

Hoping To Help (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed an excellent edit. Carrie Prejean has drifted from pageants into politics. We have to be very careful and make sure we follow WP:BLP to the letter. As editors who disagree with her politics to editors who are more conservative about bodies than she is, we have to make sure we do this according to policy. AniMate^draw 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one glaring mistake about the crown retention section. It states the date of Trump's announcement of Prejean's crown retention as May 13, 2009. Today's date is May 12th , 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.132.230 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stupid bitch remark

The stupid bitch remark needs to be in the article. It speaks for itself. Why isn't it in there? VeritasNow2009 (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaks for itself in what way? It maligns the guy who said it, as much as it does his target. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The "stupid bitch" remark doesn't say anything about his target. It says a lot about him. Is that why the remark is being suppressed? VeritasNow2009 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Not at all. The remark is being suppressed because one anti-Perez editor has made it their crusade to not have that in the article [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] because "Hilton's hate-filled comments are unnecessary and they are unencyclopedic and they aid Hilton in his abuse of another human being. Violates BLP." If you are interested in reading the users thoughts on the matter you can consult BLPN. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on. If anything violates BLP, that kind of comment does. Please strike that out.

As per the main issue, I feel that the words should be included. If there's a clear consensus of editors in support of this position, than majority ought to rule. The Squicks (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have agreed. I re-added it in. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think that the "stupid bitch" comment should be included. Because:

1. There is no other way to accurately communicate Hilton's intensity and state of mind, as well as the impact of the statement -- than including the comment itself. (If we try and paraphrase it we're in danger of introducing bias in one direction or the other.)
2. It is easily allowed under WP:BLP, because
   1. It's been covered in multiple reliable sources. WP:Reliable
   2. The fact that it occurred is 100% verifiable.WP:Verifiable (He recorded it on a video and posted it on his own web site and then talked about it to major media later.)
   3. It is NOT anywhere near being libel or defamation. WP:Libel
   4. It doesn't violate anyone's privacy.
   5. It is relevant to a key reason she is notable. WP:Notability

Hoping To Help (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the addition. Hilton's remark, more so than Prejean's answer, is what made this notable. AniMate^draw 02:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little torn on that. I think Hilton's remarks got the right involved and it brought a lot of people out on all sides to defend Ms. Prejean, but the left was up in a tizzy about her "opposite marriage" answer before Hilton's "bitch" comment broke. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as I've said all along. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perez Hilton's Homosexuality

Does anyone agree with me that Perez Hilton's homosexuality and/or political activism on behalf of homosexuals is relevant and notable?

I propose this statement be reworded as follows:

During the 2009 Miss USA pageant, Prejean was asked by pageant judge and open homosexual Perez Hilton whether she believed every U.S. state should legalize same-sex marriage.

- or -

During the 2009 Miss USA pageant, Prejean was asked by pageant judge and gay activist Perez Hilton whether she believed every U.S. state should legalize same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasNow2009 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, at least not in the manner presented here. We don't qualify Ms Prejean as straight or heterosexual, why mention that Hilton is gay? Just wikilink his name and people can go to his article and figure out more about him. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No. First of all, the term we use on Wikipedia (and all of the mainstream media) is "gay," not "homosexual." Second, Hilton is not a "gay activist," he's a gossip blogger. Third, and probably most important, labelling Hilton is an obvious POV move intended to convey something to the reader (namely that he asked that question because he's gay, or that his response was motivated by his sexuality). The article doesn't begin "Carrie Prejean, heterosexual American pageant contestant..." Nor do most articles contain specific phrasing such as you have suggested. Sometimes a subject's sexuality is relevant, and often not. But mentioning the sexuality of gay people and not straight people (which is inevitably the case) is non-neutral and POV. Hilton's sexuality is well-known and irrelevant to this issue. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's totally relevant, since it's the reason he asked the question - specifically, to try to cause a gay-related controversy, which is his stock in trade. Which it did. If he had not done so, no one outside family and friends would know or care about Prejean and she would remain a redirect in wikipedia. Far from being "tempted by the devil", this was a huge publicity boost, for the both of them, though especially for Prejean, as Perez was already fairly well-known. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I would say that while it's relevant, it's not required, as the link to Perez Hilton will tell his whole story. As far as Prejean's own orientation, that would have to be verified. Some gay people oppose same-sex marriage, so her taking a stance on the matter does not, by itself, demonstrate what her orientation is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude for the first time ever, I agree with you man. CADEN ^{is cool} 17:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Shazam! Well, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "we" that uses "gay" rather than "homosexual"? "Gay" is a euphemism for "homosexual", just as "straight" is a euphemism for heterosexual, so using the word "gay" (or "straight") is definitely POV and should be avoided.

Also, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule that demands that we use "gay" rather than "homosexual", especially since there is an article on homosexuality in Wikipedia and the "Gay" article links to it. In fact, at the top of the Gay article, it reads, "This article is about "gay" as a term. For homosexuality, see Homosexuality." (Emphasis added.) And what the heck does the main stream media have to do with an encyclopedia!?

Finally, the reason we don't say "Carrie Prejean, heterosexual American pageant contestant..." is because, in standard English language usage, being hetero is the norm and is thus assumed.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is relevant, especially when his article says he has worked for organizations such as GLAAD. What if it was switched? Eg, the judge was a pastor and member of a family group and she supported it. I am sure that we would say that he was a member of anti-gay-marriage groups. The same standard needs to be applied here. -Zeus-^u|c 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, instead of using it as a label where it is, what about adding the info (properly phrased) as a sentance or phrase in the next paragraph that describes Hiltons response.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean where it talks about his response on his blog? That could be a good place. -Zeus-^u|c 19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't label anyone elses' sexuality in that section. Do we say openly heterosexual Donald Trump, or openly heterosexual gay-rights advocate Gavin Newsom? Or openly opposite-sexual Carrie Prejean? Do we say anti-gay-marriage Maggie Gallagher? No, no, no, no, no. Why do it for Perez? Its bigoted to label only homosexuals, and not heterosexuals. And to Tstrobaugh, participate in the discussion or don't get involved in reverting material being discussed. See, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for why we should not have the material in the article just yet. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• By what logic do I have to express my opinion in order to edit? You really do like to have things your own way don't you?Tstrobaugh (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should label him as a gay activist, or 'supporter of homosexual marriage'. Not just 'homosexual'. -Zeus-^u|c 19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the description of Hilton as such is very relevant and should be included. To fail to do so it to rob the reader of the context of the question/response. - Schrandit (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs said: "it's totally relevant, since it's the reason he asked the question." Is it? How do you know, and where can I get a crystal ball like yours? "Gay-related controversies" are not Hilton's "stock in trade" either; celebrity gossip is.

Aha. Then controversies of any kind are his stock in trade - as with any other celebrity gossip writer. That's a good point. So instead of saying "gay activist" it should probably say "gossip columnist" or whatever. That would probably be a fairer context. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hilton's sexuality is completely irrelevant; labelling him would be a clear POV violation. And "supporter of 'homosexual marriage'" is just silly. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It might not be relevant to the question, but it definitely relevant to his follow up, which is included in the article. -Zeus-^u|c 20:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not relevant to that either. The fact that he's gay has no relevance to his disapproval of Prejean's comment, as he himself stated: according to him hers was "the worst answer in pageant history." He did not say "I'm gay, therefore I didn't like her answer." He did not say "I'm a gay activist, therefore I disagree with her." We do not interpret events; that would be original research. We only report what was said and what happened. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. His (Perez Hilton) sexual orientation is not relevant. What is relevant is that he is a gay activist and worked for GLAAD. You would note a persons stance on an issue if they were publicly involved in the issue and if they asked a loaded question pursuant to that issue. You would note if someone was a pro-life activist and asked a loaded abortion question. Think of some different examples of issues and see if this is not true.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a gay activist? Its a very ambiguous term, and I'm not sure if its true. He doesn't advocate for being gay, he advocates for gay rights. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a "gay activist" in the sense of advocating for heterosexuals to turn gay, but definitely so in the sense of not believing people who are gay but not public about it should in fact be allowed to keep it private. John Darrow (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If that is to be the meaning of "gay activist" why would that label be applicable for inclusion in the Carrie Prejean article? Has Perez called on Ms. Prejean to come out? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it adds context: Hilton is well known for forcefully advocating certain positions regarding homosexuality. As such, for him to ask a question regarding same-sex marriage makes it clear it is a loaded question. Tstrobaugh's argument regarding an abortion question has pretty much convinced me. John Darrow (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not opposed to any labeling, but we need to get the wording right. Pro-life describes a political and ethical view which maintains that human fetuses and embryos are persons and therefore have a right to live. A person can be an activist for that political and ethical viewpoint. Gay, or Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, unless he is trying to recruit gays he really isn't a gay activist. I would suggest something along the lines of LGBT rights advocate. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -Zeus-^u|c 22:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's start by using his REAL name: Mario Armando Lavandeira. Is it encyclopedic to keep referring to someone by their nickname or stage name? That might be like calling John Wayne "The Duke" on all references. 64.221.15.66 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it would be like calling Marion Robert Morrison, "John Wayne". TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. In the article about him, it says "He briefly worked as a media relations assistant for LGBT rights organization GLAAD." This does not mean he is a "gay activist," and you'll notice that his article is not categorized under LGBT rights activists. Peter Thatchell is a gay activist. Harvey Milk was a gay activist. Perez Hilton is a gossip blogger who sometimes outs closeted famous people. Calling him a gay activist is incorrect at best, and it's an obvious POV pushing attempt at worst. The agenda here is clearly to make a statement. In the total absence of any credible source confirming that Hilton's sexual orientation or alleged gay activism have anything to do with the Miss USA issue, adding these labels to the article is original research, and it's non-neutral. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong. Hilton calls himself an activist [19]. End of story, put it in or bring to RFD.Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree here with Exploding Boy's conclusion. For while I assume that Hilton is gay (or at the very least doesn't identify as straight) and I imagine his life experiences b/c of his sexual orientation and/or peoples' (right or wrong) assumptions about his orientation probably have affected his view and emotional charge around same-sex marriage and his reaction to Prejean -- none of that matters here. Because it's all original research WP:OR. So until someone comes up with reliable sources that identify him as gay or as a gay rights activist and links that to this controversy (see WP:Synth ) -- we need to leave it out of this article. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to support WP:FRINGE either, so it should be what the majority of sources identify him as in relation to this controversy. If we go looking for a source just to describe him as gay in relation to this controversy it really is WP:OR. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Exploding Boy as well, as well as User:TharsHammar, it is POV/OR to specifically mention that he is gay when the sexuality of Ms. Prejean, Mr. Trump, or anyone else who is heterosexual is not mentioned. Epson291 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no question of his being gay. The issue is whether that figures into his asking the question. Logic would suggest so, but a straight interviewer could have asked that question also, especially if they were trying to put her on the spot (which he did) - which means the motive would have been to incite controversy, rather than to try to push any "gay agenda". So unless Hilton himself has said something about it, his specific motives remain uncertain. It could well be all the above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Labeling who he sleeps with is silly. But the point here is not what Hilton is or what he does. The question is about the context. He favored the Vermont decision. And he asked about it. I personally don't think that an addition like , who favored the Vermont decision, would possibly violate BLP. I don't have strong feelings about it any way, though. The Squicks (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We would label someone as straight if they opposed it; why not the other way around? -Zeus-^u|c 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There are gays who do not support same-sex marriage, and straights who do, so you can't draw any conclusions about someone's orientation based on support or opposition. It comes down to, "What motivated him to ask the question?" Was it because he supports gay rights? Was it because he just likes to stir things up? Or maybe a bit of both? How can we tell? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't mention any other persons' sexuality because we just assume that they are straight. This is just like when we mention that someone is a white Zimbabwean because in the absence of such an adjective we assume that they are black. Neither one of these is an unreasonable assumption. It is in no way unusual to mention that Hilton is a homosexual while not commenting on the sexuality of other parties mentioned in the article. I would also like to comment that most news articles on the topic described Ms. Prejean as "Christian" or as "Evangelical" which I believe only felt to give greater context to the events. It would be worth it to mention that Hilton is gay or that he is a supporter of gay marriage. If Hilton were neither of these things I doubt the events would have been half as controversial. - Schrandit (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

His specific motives for asking are apparently uncertain, but to state "Hilton, who supports same-sex marriage..." would seem to be a fair and verifiable way to put it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(To Schrandit) It would be bigoted to comment on Hilton's sexuality. We don't mention that Donald Trump has been thrice married, and that would lend as much context to the situation as Hilton's sexuality, since the unusual nature of his life shows that he has a passion for straight marriages. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, do you honestly believe the two are equally relevant? The news media sure doesn't - Schrandit (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It would not be bigoted. That does not mean it would be appropriate or necessary, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that there is nothing in the article, at least nothing I see at first glance, that indicates Prejean's orientation. You could assume straight, but that doesn't cut it for the article. Trump is a known quantity, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If Perez was black, and had asked Prejean if she thought blacks should be allowed to marry, would it be reasonable to mention that he was black? Would it be relevant even if Perez was not a black-marriage supporter? Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think the two situations lend each other to comparison. I think one that would be would have been if an Evangelical (or Muslim or what have you) judge had asked a homosexual candidate about marriage and the candidate lost because of her answer. In such an instance I think the adjectives would lend greater context to the events. - Schrandit (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, the relevant judge has gone on record stating that the candidate lost because she answered poorly, not because of the content of her answer. What is the point of the "final question" portion of a beauty pageant? It is supposed to give the contestants a chance to demonstrate that they're more than just a pretty face, and that they can give a poised, intelligent, unprepared answer to a question that is typically about current events. Remember when Lauren Upton was asked that question about why many Americans can't locate their own country on a world map?

Prejean, who is Miss California besides a resident of the US, made 2 pretty major errors in her response: (1) she said that Americans can choose "one way or the other" -- nearly all of them can't -- and (2) she said that Americans "live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage" -- they don't, and same-sex marriages contracted in the few states where they are allowed have no federal recognition.

In other words, despite being the representative of a state where same-sex marriage has been a major ongoing issue for at least a year and despite the fact that, as Hilton alluded to in his question, same-sex marriage has been in the news across the US pretty much constantly during that period and probably longer due to various states legalizing or prohibiting it; presidential debates; lawsuits, and everything else, Prejean was unable to answer what was basically a current events question correctly. On top of that she didn't even get the terminology right ("opposite marriage"??). Beyond even that, she answered in a way that was guaranteed to alienate a large part of her audience, not to mention the pageant industry, which as everyone knows is dominated by gay men. Some people have attempted to draw a parallel between her views and Obama's. The difference is that, while Obama said more or less the same thing, he also made it clear that he doesn't believe in discrimination. Prejean also said later said she thinks same-sex couples deserve some marriage-type rights, but she didn't manage to get that across in her answer (and not only that, but she was unable to answer basic questions about her opinion on the subject even days after the fact).

Had she (like Obama) given an answer that better conveyed her views (apparently that because she was raised Christian she believes that marriage is for opposite-sex couples, but that she doesn't (entirely) believe in discrimination) without alienating so many people, including the very people who worked in support of her during the contest itself, perhaps she wouldn't have lost. But I see nothing in the chain of events or the statements of the relevant parties to suggest that Hilton's sexuality has anything to do with Prejean's loss. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. And I think I read somewhere that she had "dreaded" being asked a question like that. Well, if that's so, then that's the question she should have spent time preparing to answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides which, what kind of question was she expecting from Hilton? Her opinion on Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, perhaps? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Her lack of poise in dealing with that question reminds me of the infamous Dan Quayle quote. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that it was the content, not the form, of the response that was the basis of the "she answered poorly" explanation. That is, she answered "poorly" because she didn't support Hilton's position. How do I know? Simple. No one in their right mind goes on a red-faced video-blog rant using expletives because one of the contestants didn't give a well-worded response. If it was the form of her response, then he would have simply laughed at her - but if you saw the video, he was not laughing; it was more like she had just killed one of his family members. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, how is any of this silly and blatantly inaccurate OR at all relevant? First off, all people can choose one way or the other. Marriage law is something that is decided by the Democratic will of the people. That will of the people chose against same-sex marriage in California but it did so the other way in Vermont. According to Prejean (and me- which I wholeheartedly agree with), this is a great thing. It's great to live in a society where the majority determines the law.

And your comment about Obama is simply wrong. He does favor discrimination. He favors a 'Seperate but Equal' system where gays get second-class citizen status under 'civil unions' and straights get normal marriage. He claims that drinking out of one segregated water fountain is as good as the other. Some people support that claim. I do not, as does the small and brave minority of those who support legalization of same sex marriage.

And the comment about the industry being dominated by gay men... Well, its also dominated by people who are political liberals. Did that stop the other Pageant contestant from saying that she opposes the Barack Obama bailouts? No. Was she an idiot for doing that? No. She was someone who stuck to their convictions despite what the audience wanted to hear.

I see that noone has been willing to respond to the main point that I had earlier. Hilton had a question about a specific government decision that he publicly supported. It would be the same thing as if Lars Ulrich had asked someone a question about copyright law. Would anyone object to including Lars Urlich, who supports traditional copyright law in an article? The Squicks (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of folks out there, including gays, who think that marriage is by definition a male-female thing. The basic problem is that there are aspects to marriage. One is what could be called the "spiritual" aspect, which has been accessible for a long time to anyone who can find a liberal-thinking minister, so that must not be what you're referring to. The other is what could be called the "civil" or "legal" aspect, and that would be what you're talking about. That aspect can carry certain benefits under law, such as as when filing income taxes. In that sense, if "civil unions" were to be set up with equivalent benefits to being married, then everyone should be happy, right? But they're not. Because what they really want is public acceptance. If there's a "gay agenda", that's the core of it. And if their type of pairing can legally be defined as marriage, then that's a step toward that acceptance. But that has a long ways to go. And comparing it to the drinking fountain situation is really offensive. Couples have always had the right to "spiritually" marry without the law coming into the picture. The right to "legally" marry is regulated by the individual states, which stands to reason, as the privileges connected with being married are also granted by the states (i.e. by the voters in those states, via their representatives). As for me, I am fully in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, as it will ensure plenty of business for lawyers once the same-sex divorce cases start rolling in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, User:Schrandit, "silly and blatantly inaccurate" is your opinion. Perez Hilton, the only one whose comments about his motivations matter, has gone on record stating that Prejean lost because her answer was poor, not because of the answer's content. Indeed, he also said that if she had given a better answer (not changed the content) she might have won. End of story.

But in answer to your questions, regarding Obama not believing in discrimination, I'm simply pointing out that this is what he said in his answer. I don't personally believe that seperate but equal is equal or right.

And as for another contestant saying that she opposes the bailouts, perhaps she did a better job of answering the question, which is what it all boils down to. Maybe the judge who asked that question supports the bailouts. We don't know and it's irrelevant, just as Hilton's support of same-sex marriage is irrelevant. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're onto it. It's not necessarily that she opposes same-sex marriage, the point that seems to have become the story; but that she explained her position poorly - something akin to a Dan Quayle moment. As often happens with media frenzy, the original point was lost amidst the brouhaha. Because here's the deal: If you take a controversial stance, and can't eloquently or accurately explain your views, you look insincere and/or stupid, no matter which side of an issue you're on. Suffice it to say, if Coulter were in that spot (with or without the artificial knockers), she would have answered it much more eloquently. She might also have gotten into a fistfight with Perez, which would have been an even better youtube moment. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Be cautious. Free discussion can lead to article improvements, or at least to consensus on how the article should read. Hence all the debate about whether who said what is important or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not what this is about. This has gone on a tanget into the legality and morality of gay marriage and choice. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's still about trying to get a handle on the significance (if any) of this story and how to present the article. But if you're saying it's approaching the "dead horse" stage, you may be right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded refs

Why are there references with like 2 paragraphs of text? Does anyone know how/why they got in the article, and would anyone oppose deleting the extraneous text? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of them I added. Because:

1. It makes it easier when trying to see if the text of the article is a fair representation of the text in the source.
2. It's also useful if the cited source becomes unavailable online (or, if it gets moved to a pay-to-view archive.)
3. Also, I always find it useful when the citations in an article have some text from the source -- it gives me an idea if it would be worthwhile to check out the source (and it gives me some extra information without having to go to the effort of going to the source.)
4. Additionally, online sources often don't have page numbers so it is hard to reference where in the online source you are pulling your information -- so including some of the relevant text lets readers and editors know what section of the source you're using to support your edit.

So ... I'd argue for leaving it in as the cost for having it there is very low and it adds value in various ways. Hoping To Help (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Moot

With regards to this article, everything overlapping with Miss USA 2009 controversy should be moved over to there.Tstrobaugh (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And then this Prejean article could either be returned to its former status as a redirect to Deal or No Deal, or could be redirected to that article. No need for two articles on precisely the same subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Even if she was not anti-gay marriage, then she would probably end up getting a page. After all, we even have a WikiProject for Beauty Pageant winners. The Squicks (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at the page history. She was nothing but a redirect until this controversy came up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be simply because WikiProject Beauty Pageants was still working up the necessary references and such for a good article. She was already Miss California USA 2009, and even with the controversy over her answer, she still ended up Miss USA 2009 runner-up. A quick look at the prior years' pageant pages shows that the previous runners-up all have their own pages, with a few references each.

Another point is that, yes, there are also a few other pages on the particular controversy. So what? For most events, there are pages on the event itself, pages for the various participants, etc. Not all of them cover the event the same way, nor should they. The same should apply here. Miss USA 2009 Controversy? In-depth coverage of the actual question and answer, direct responses to it. Perez Hilton? Hilton's particular alternating string of derogations and apologies, and the various public figures' responses to those. Carrie Prejean? Carrie's answer, media responses to it (but not necessarily responses to those responses), her follow-up activities, etc. (This is in addition to the basic biographical information about her, her time before the Miss USA 2009 pageant, etc.) John Darrow (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And if you take out the controversy stuff due to being elsewhere, how many sentences are left in this article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't take it all out, you reduce it to the necessary amount to indicate that something happened, limiting it to the portions which specifically regard Prejean herself (e.g. none of the back-and-forth about Hilton's comments and whether or not he is a bigot), and refer people to the relevant article elsewhere for more details.

I think a consensus has been pretty well established that, even after removing the WP:COATRACK issues here, there's still enough notability and sourced information available for an article specifically about her. You probably end up with at least as many sentences left as you have on the other Miss USA runner-up pages - about one screen full. John Darrow (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The whole reason for creating a stand-alone article on the issue was to remove all the repetition from the half-dozen other articles even distantly related to it. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Trump says Miss California USA can retain crown

[10 minutes ago] Can't edit page, but here's the latest according to this article [20]: Trump says the pageant has determined the photos are "fine." Please add, thanks! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That date should be May 12, 2009 (today) on the page, not May 13, 2009 ( tomorrow )...

Already taken care of, the date is now correct. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the date, include clearly Miss California USA retains crown

On the official record, Carrie Prejean is apparently allowed to retain her Miss California USA crown, and there are a bunch of sources, but just for the sake of it (http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=6), which says trump said:

"We have determined that the pictures taken are fine," he said. "Some were very beautiful, some were risque, but, again, we're in the 21st century.... In many cases they were actually lovely pictures."

Yes, that is already in the article. Is there something more you want included? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Set of Revealing Photos: Why No Mention?

Does anyone else find it significant that a second set of photographs revealing Ms. Prejean's breast(s) came out? The way the Wiki article reads now, it seems to indicate only one set surfaced. (Don't know how to sign this format - - William) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. Did someone remove my link to the L.A. Times article, just now? The photos were also discussed by Keith Olbermann, MSNBC [21] (signed - - William) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay...I think I didn't save reference correctly when I answered before. Sorry. Anyway, the first set of photos that surfaced were the ones in the pink Victoria's Secret panties. Then there was the second set, in which nipples are exposed, which she claims are the result of the wind blowing her top open during a photo shoot. [22] (signed -- William) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think think they should be mentioned, particularly as it has been claimed that they were taken after she was 18 and after the breast surgery. [23] --Ml66uk2 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it pertinent that mother had lesbian affair?

According to news sources ([24]), Ms. Prejean's "Evangelical Christian" mother had a lesbian affair that was still underway during the Miss California crowning. Do we wait until the mother makes a confirmation or denial to mention this in Wiki article...or is it considered to be unrelated? (signed - - William) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Carrie Prejean, not her mother. I'd say that per WP:BLP we should avoid details like that about people who are not notable themselves and details that have no direct connection to anything that makes the subject notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. AniMate^draw 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the reason I thought it was perhaps appropriate was because much of what's made Ms. Prejean notable is her stance on homosexuality and now it's being revealed her mother, who raised her in an Evangelical home, is either gay or bisexual. TO CLARIFY: If, say, a public figure took a stance wanting to deny benefits/rights/whatever to Canadians and then it turned out they were of Canadian heritage themself, wouldn't that be an interesting piece of the story? (signed -- William) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but to connect the two would be be original research or maybe synthesis. The one way I'd see it possibly being relavant to the article is if Carrie herself made statements connecting this (alleged) relationship, and her own beliefs and words.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On top of everything else, we're dealing with a rumor at this point. - Schrandit (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I'm sure there will be more news stories that will attempt confirmation. But I'm glad we got the discussion started. To me, anyway, the news seems germane. (signed -- William) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amusing, and might be pertinent to Prejean's attitudes, but not notable or encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Francine Copolla (Carrie Prejean's mother) says she is not a lesbian or bisexual.

I worked with her for two days in May 2009. She has heard the stories about her having a lesbian lover. She told me she had in deed met the women mentioned in the articles at a restaurant. The lady was there with another woman. Francine was looking for a different job. The lady mentioned in the articles said she might be able to help Francine get a job at the Palm Springs Convention Center. The lady asked Francine to send her a resume. Francine faxed her the resume. The woman called her a few times to follow up on the resume.

There were no dates.

Francine told me she is not a lesbian or bisexual.

It appears the women who told the tabloids about the affair was just seeking publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is of course unverifiable. But it doesn't matter, because it's not on-topic either. This article is about Carrie Prejean, not her mother. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable and not on-topic for the article, sure, but such anecotal contributions on a talk page do no harm when they serve to put the brakes on dealings with dubious "reportage" from the media. Bustter (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Would whoever placed the tags (currently for Neutrality, Quality, Tone, and Quotations) please initiate discussion of them on the talk page as required or remove them.

• The neutrality issues have apparently been dealt with as discussion has died.
• Tone seems mostly fine.
• There does not appear to be an excess of quotes in the article at present.

As for the points raised in the Quality tag, they only way I can see of dealing with them is deleting the article entirely, which isn't going to happen. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Word. I'm even of the opinion that the article is up to quality but I understand that opinion may be contested. The other 3 tags should definitely go. - Schrandit (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So how 'bout them tags?

Appearance on KUSI TV

Since one editor seems determined that this information should be in the article, I'm bringing it here for discussion. Apparently Prejean was the co-host on Good Morning San Diego. Is this information encyclopedic? Is it important enough that we must record this fact in a discreet paragraph for future generations? No. Television appearances (even as co-host), in and of themselves, are not notable or encyclopedic. Joy Behar's appearances on Larry King Live? Encyclopedic: it's an iconic show and she stands in for King on a regular basis. Clay Aiken co-hosting Live With Regis And Kelly? Notable for the ensuing controversy, thus worthy of inclusion. Prejean "demonstrating her golf and basketball skills"? Neither notable nor encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If her co-hosting gig was a one-shot deal, i.e. lasted for one segment, it's not worth mentioning, IMO. But it is if it was an actual job she held down under contract...because she doesn't have much experience in the entertainment industry and a job like that would qualify her as a professional. (signed - - William) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.205.2 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If its inclusion does not meet Wikipedia standards, please remove it. I added it because of the previous section about her being on Fox and Friends. Since no one removed that section, it seemed appropriate. I undid the undo because the person who removed it said I was unreliable as a resource. I work at KUSI and I documented her visit with photos which are displayed on my website. Again, if the paragraphs about her shorter TV appearances are inappropriate, then remove them. I won't complain in the slightest. Phil Konstantin (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were unreliable as a source, I said blogs are unreliable as sources. Please see WP:SOURCE. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an agreement. But mentioning that the photo is of her appearance on KUSI seems like a fine caption. So did that. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Governor of Alaska supports Carrie Prejean

I heard about this everywhere but its not on the article! i was wondering whether it should be included, since this is the vice-president of the Republican Party if you get what i mean... http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=18 RadioheadGossip (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get what you mean...-Schrandit (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the phrase "dumb bitch" quoted in the article three or four time??

Once again, now that some time has passed, I have to ask why is the phrase, the phrase used by the little-known gossip columnist Hilton, "dumb bitch" quoted in the article three or four times? It is NOT encyclopedic. It violates BLP and it is redundant. I am going to remove the references because they are NOT needed and there has never a definite reason given for the repetition of the ignorant, intolerant, stupid, violation of the BLP.--InaMaka (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in removing every instance of the phrase, and adding some misleading "dubious" tags, you've basically gone against consensus here and elsewhere as well as making it appear as though a real quote has been mistyped or quoted out of context. Care to explain how that is appropriate or has improved the article? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka -- This issue has been discussed and resolved multiple times. See the latest discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carrie_Prejean#Stupid_bitch_remark . Just because something is offensive or hurtful doesn't mean that it is a violation of BLP. You argue that the "stupid bitch" comment is "ignorant, intolerant, stupid" -- and I wouldn't disagree. Ironically, the outrageousness of the comment is what caused the controversy to be notable. You also say that Hilton is a "little-known gossip columnist." The issue is that he was the judge at the pageant that asked her the original question -- and he claimed she lost because of her answer. Please do not remove references to "bitch" in the article without getting agreement on this talk page -- since we've already reached agreement to have it included. Hoping To Help (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

General question: Why is Perez Hilton's doings and sayings so important to Wikipedia? Antique Rose (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This has already been covered in great detail, Antique Rose, and we don't need to rehash it all here. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Could you direct me to that particular discussion? Antique Rose (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Exploding Boy and Hoping to Help you are simply wrong. There is NO concensus that Hilton must be quoted and quoted and quoted over and over again. There is NO argument given here or anywhere else that justifies having the hate speech of Hilton repeated over and over again. One quote is enough, but why the second, third, fourth, fifth quoting of his hate speech??? You have not responded to that issue. Also, you are NOT the final judge and jury or whether concensus has been reached. That is merely your opinion. I have a right to boldly edit and I will remove the quotes that are redundant, unnecessary and not encyclopedic.--InaMaka (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said "over and over again," InaMaka. But after you edited, not one instance of that quote remained. That is against consensus, which agreed that Hilton's words should be in the section. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And I note that you have just edited to remove all references to that quote yet again, once again going against consensus. Please stop. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's go over this one more time. Exploding Boy, you're opinion is NOT the only opinion that matters. Merely your opinion does NOT make consensus. Here's the deal: you are ignoring the FACT that the "stupid bitch" comment has been quoted in the article over and over again and I have asked directly to explain the reasoning for the inclusion of one, two, three, four, and five different hate speech comments from Hilton. You have not addressed WHY those incidents of hate speech MUST be included in the article. You have NOT explained why the constant repetition of Hilton's hate speech does not violate BLP. You have not explained the article needs to be filled with redundant repetition of Hilton's hate speech. You can attempt to divert the topic to something else, but the need to comply with BLP still exists.--InaMaka (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We've gone over this about 500 times. For the last time: I did not add all those instances of the "dumb bitch" comment to the article. The consensus (yes, consensus, not just my opinion) is that it should be in there once, but nobody is saying that it needs to be there 5 times, so can we please get past that little inaccuracy? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeating Hilton's hate speech is redundant and unnecessary.

Look, I'm not blaming you for the four or five repeats of Hilton's hate speech. However, it was in the article and it has been in the article for most of the time since Hilton spouted off his ignorant hate speech. I have been attempting to tone down the article which is only appropriate to end the violation of BLP. There have been several admins who have pointed out the unbalance of the article. Hilton's extreme, irrational hatred of Prejean does NOT have to be repeated over and over and this Wikipedia article does NOT have to quote Hilton's narrow-minded hate speech over and over again to make the point that he does not like her and why he believes she did not win. It is redundant, unnecessary, and unencyclopedic and MOST of ALL it violates BLP to repeat the personal attacks over and over again. Once again, as I have pointed out over and over again, Wikipedia does NOT allow the narrow-minded comments of Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich to control and dominate the article about Barack Obama and we will NOT allow the narrow-minded hate speech of Hilton to control and dominate the article about Prejean. We can and will point out his extreme, psychopathic hatred of Prejean without repeating his hatred word for word.--InaMaka (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I would suggest you stop throwing around the term "hate speech." Calling someone a dumb bitch is not hate speech, and to claim it is undermines the real damage done by actual hate speech. Similarly, it's obviously extreme hyperbole to call Hilton a psychopath. Please tone down the rhetoric so we can have a reasonable discussion.

The reason the article has been called unbalanced is not because of Hilton's remark, it's because an article about an otherwise not very notable person was largely overtaken by paragraph after paragraph about this not very notable, not very encyclopedic incident. This incident isn't encyclopedic at all really, but since some editors are bound and determined to write about it on Wikipedia, we have to deal with it.

That being said, Hilton's remark is relevant to the incident. We've discussed this ad nauseam. Having one instance of the remark in the article is not injurious to Carrie Prejean (it certainly doesn't help Hilton's image, which should make you very happy), it is a large part of the controversy, and it's the reason why some people have reacted like you are. We cannot have vague remarks like "referred to Prejean using a pejorative" instead of Hilton's comments and quote Prejean extensively either (that's another reason some have called the article "unbalanced"). If we write about the incident at all, then we write about the comments of both parties. We've already achieved consensus on this anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would actually say that we haven't ever truly established consensus regarding quoting the remarks in the article, precisely because every time a discussion has been started, it has devolved into arguments about being civil, etc. on the talk page, as this one is once again edging toward.

Now, as far as the substance of the issue is concerned, my take is this: I don't believe the "dumb b...h" quote belongs in this article, on the following bases:

1. As a general principle, when one person says a disparaging thing about another person, our articles don't quote it on the callee's page, unless the callee directly responds to the particular quote. InaMaka's point about Delay and Gingrich's comments not dominating Obama's page touches on this. While I've seen a lot of coverage from other commentators responding to this particular comment of Hilton, I haven't seen anything (at least not anything referenced here) where Prejean specifically responded to it. (I support this principle with the idea that this kind of disparaging comment is technically an ad hominem attack, and thus as far as rhetorical debate is concerned says nothing whatsoever about the validity of anything the attack's target says; its use says far more about the person who uses it than about their target.)

2. Hilton's use of this pejorative was not directly in response to Prejean's answer in the pageant; it came only after others had responded to his initial comments on his blog. Again, in my view, this makes it less about Prejean and more about how Hilton felt his earlier comments were being interpreted.

3. As this article is in fact about Prejean, it only makes sense that, of the people quoted in the article, she would be the one quoted the most; after all, _in a given person's article_, what better way to learn about that person's world view, positions, etc. than to read what they've said?

4. Having too much here about this particular incident pushes WP:COATRACK. Again, the article should summarize her appearance in the pageant and direct responses to it, not responses to responses, and should also do so only to an extent that doesn't outweigh the rest of the biography, which itself ought to be reasonably comparable in size to those of other Miss USA runner-ups. Similarly, what responses are included shouldn't give undue weight to one person's view, even one who was a judge.

Having said all that, I also don't believe that having the quote on Wikipedia at all somehow constitutes a conspiracy by Wikipedians to tar Prejean, nor do I believe that WP:BLP requires us to remove it everywhere, though it does urge us to be sensitive as to its use, especially whether its presence on this particular article furthers an _encyclopedic_ purpose. In my view, there is a place on Wikipedia for this particular quote and the responses to it, and that is on the Perez Hilton page, per points 1, 2, and 3 above (just as one might quote e.g. Gingrich's view of Obama on Gingrich's page, but not on Obama's). After all, at its core the quote really is about Hilton's view of the incident, isn't it?

John Darrow (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you John Darrow for articulating your position so well! :-) I think you probably changed my mind. I wish more Wikipedia discussions were framed so clearly and calmly and without resorting to hyperbole or name calling. Thanks!! Hoping To Help (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've thought about it more, I realize there are important differences between what makes a president of the US notable and what make a beauty contestant notable -- and thereby what should be included in each of the Wikipedia articles about them. Presidents have usually done many, many things in their life that are much more notable than people calling them names. We expect people to get mad at presidents and call them names. Being criticized by leaders of the opposition party is especially not notable. In contrast, beauty queens have rarely (if ever?) been involved in a public political squabble that has caused people to get extremely upset. Instead they are known for steering far clear of controversy and saying things like "I'm in favor of world peace." Now it may be true that she had no choice but to be upsetting given the question asked her -- or it may be true that she could have answered it more skillfully and no one would have been upset. But either way she gave an answer that was a trigger for stirring up a hornets nest (or at least attracted the attention of two groups of very sensitive and already upset hives -- that then used her as an excuse to have a fight).

MAIN POINT: The intensity and crudeness of Hilton's comments is a primary cause of Prejean's fame/notability. I believe that these two directives from WP:BLP are what should guide us in deciding what criticism/quotes about Prejean to include:

1. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability ..."
2. "On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it." (underline added) -- Although, my opinion is that including Hilton's comments makes Prejean look better not worse ... but that's not really relevant.

CONCLUSION: We should focus the Wikipedia article on issues relating to her notability. Which to a large degree are quotes of what people (incl. Hilton, Newsom and Trump) have said about her and/or her pageant answer.

Hoping To Help (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While it may be your conclusion, it is not the conclusion of the group. It is also a flawed conclusion. Your analysis makes several incorrect assumptions. I don't have time to outline all of them, but the glaring ones are: (1) BLP rules are NOT defined by notability but actually by whether comments are following the strict guidelines of Wikipedia generally and whether the article is conservative in process of what to leave in and what to leave out of the article with the number one thought in the minds of the editors of "possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment". That statement comes directly from the rules. It is NOT the job of Wikipedia to be a tabloid or to be sensationalist. Now, Hoping, I see what the thought process was that you went through, but it misses the point. You are focusing on notability but notability is NOT the touchstone of a BLP analysis. The touchstone is strict construction and a strict adherence to the foundations of Wikipedia such as NPOV, no original research and verifiability. Notice that the BLP rules do NOT focus on notability. Your whole analysis focuses on notability.

(2) Your notability comments are flawed also because you assume incorrectly that the fact that Prejean IS Miss California USA is NOT enough reason to be notable, of course, that in itself is. It would NOT have mattered if Hilton verbally attacked her or not. She was already notable. AND the fact that she was first runner up to Miss USA made her notable with or without Hilton's comments. And finally she has been a model and that would in and of itself make her notable. So your notability analysis is flawed at any rate.

(3) But most importantly BLP is about not causing harm to a living person. It does not matter if that person is a President (Obama) or a beauty pageant contestant (Prejean) the analysis ALWAYS the same. We as Wikipedia is NOT supposed to engage in writing that harms the image or reputation of a living person. That's all. You attempted to make the argument that "Well, Obama is President so a whole lot of people are going to criticize him so we should not quote ALL of these negative comments. However, Prejean is JUST a beauty pageant contestant and well most beauty pageant contestants do not offend people but this particular one, Prejean, did so we HAVE to quote Hilton over and over and over again. As a matter of fact we need to focus the whole article on Hilton's mean-spirited, hate speech because well it is the ONLY reason Prejean is famous." This is an incorrect analysis from a BLP perspective. It does NOT matter one iota whether Prejean is a President, a TV talk show host, a newspaper delivery girl, or a even, gasp, a beauty pageant contestant. As a matter of fact, the FACT that Prejean is not as well known as Obama makes it ALL more important that Wikipedia editors be conservative in their editing and follow the rules with strict construction because there is MORE chance of irreparable harm to Prejean's reputation than if she was more well known. So the real conclusion is that as Wikipedians we MUST follow a conservative path that does NOT sensationalize the arguments for or against Prejean. And finally, repeating Hilton's rants over and over and over again IS a sensationalist act and it reeks of tabloid journalism at its worse. Why can't the article merely point out that Hilton has an irrational, deep, and mean hatred for Prejean without repeating his hatred over and over again. By us repeating his horrible thoughts and opinions we are doing exactly what BLP specifically direct us NOT to do and that is engage in tabloid journalist--the point of which is to ruin Prejean's reputation. I'm not going to participate in the assistance of Hilton's attempts to ruin her reputation and I'm sure that Jimbo would not want Wikipedia to assist in that defamation either. The article is about PREJEAN; it is NOT about what Hilton thinks about Prejean and we should not allow Hilton's obvious hatred control and dictate the tone and timbre of the article. It violates BLP and moreover it is just god awful writing and unprofessional.--InaMaka (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If it is highly relevant to Miss Prejeans notability that Perez Hilton called her a dumb bitch, then we should include the quote calling her a dumb bitch. If it is not then we should not. InaMaka is inventing policy here, selectively chopping quotes, and adding capitalized words to make the arguments sound more compelling than they really are. The above explanations about why this is relevant to her notability are solid ones, and I have to agree, and therefore we should include the quotation calling Miss Prejean a dumb bitch. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by TharsHammar is hilarious. He/she claims that I am making up policy. That I am making up the FACTS: (1) that Wikipedia has a BLP policy, (2) that Wikipedia policy does not encourage sensationalism, (3) that an article should be about the subject (Prejean) and not the mere opinion of one highly divorced from reality person (Hilton) about another person (Prejean), (4) BLP applies to both Presidents and beauty queens alike, etc. These are facts, not just opinion. Prejean was a notable person whether Hilton opened his mouth or not and as a notable living person BLP applies whether to Prejean whether TharsHammar likes that fact or not. TharsHammar has not provided substantive rebuttal to anything that I pointed out above, only the false claim that I was making up policy. If TharsHammar's argument is true then BLP does not exist. If TharsHammar argument is true then it is appropriate to treat Presidents with BLP respect and if a notable person is less well known then we as Wikipedians can write just about any thing that we want about them. Have you noticed that every editor that wants to place two, three, four, and five quotes of Hilton in the article seems to be absolutely upset that I call Hilton's comments irrational (which they clearly are), mean (there is no doubt that fact), and hate-filled (right on target again)? If BLP applies to Hilton why doesn't it apply to Prejean??? Especially since Hilton is the person that shot off his irrational, mean, hate-filled mouth in the first place and not Prejean? BLP applies and NO AMOUNT of jumping up and down by TharsHammar can change that fact and quoting Hilton's one opinion about Prejean over and over again violates BLP. Have you noticed that TharsHammar just can't seem to get enough of stating the phrase "dumb bitch" over and over again? I think that it is clear that TharsHammar is a biased editor that simply wants to ignore the restrictions of BLP just to place the unnecessary phrase in the article, over and over again, I might add. At one point the article quoted Hilton's irrational, mean-spirited verbal attack on Prejean five different times. Not one person has explained yet why it had to be quoted over and over again. Please notice that TharsHammar has never given an explanation on why there is a version of the article that quoted Hilton over and over again. Is the article about Hilton? No. The article is about Prejean who qualified for an article long, long before Hilton shot off his mouth. There are many, many people who have called President Obama less hate-filled things than Hilton used on Prejean and those irrational comments about Obama are repeatedly left out of the article on Obama. Why? Because those comments are NOT necessary to get a point across. If Rush Limbaugh calls Sonia Sotomayor a racist, then should the Wikipedia article about Sotomayor quote Limbaugh's comments two, three, four, five times in the article about Sotomayor? The short answer is no. The article is about Sotomayor and her life, not the opinion of one person. The same applies to beauty queens. There is no exception to BLP for beauty queens as Hoping was claiming. That is a fact and it is not simply made up as TharsHammar incorrectly claims. It is just simply illogical to argue that there is a "beauty queen exception to BLP" that apparently Hoping to Help and TharsHammar have envisioned.--InaMaka (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

However, it really should be in there only once. BTW, InaMaka, the article should not, under any circumstances, "point out that Hilton has an irrational, deep, and mean hatred for Prejean" -- remember, WP:BLP applies to Perez Hilton as well, and unless you've got that solidly referenced and documented, it ain't going in. Let the reader draw her own conclusions. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course, it is merely my opinion that Hilton is a mean-sprinted, narrow-minded bigot and therefore it should not be included in that form. I never stated that we should use those words. That is merely a figment of your imagination.--InaMaka (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To quote exactly what you said above, "Why can't the article merely point out that Hilton has an irrational, deep, and mean hatred for Prejean without repeating his hatred over and over again." Sounds like you wanted the article to say that to me. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what your comment sounds like to me? It sounds like you want to change the subject from dealing with the important issue that there is a desire by many editors of this article to quote Hilton's hate-filled speech over and over and over again, ad nauseam, until it is all about Hilton's opinion about Carrie Prejean and not about Carrie Prejean at all. That is the issue: applying the terms and restrictions of BLP to the article. Your discussion about how I am not allowed to point out that Hilton's comments were clearly hate-filled is a red herring to divert attention from the documented work of some editors to build a whole article about one person (Prejean, and BLP applies to every living person who is notable, beauty queens included) and focus the article on the comments of one person who clears hates the subject of the article. It is a violation of BLP and that should be the focus.--InaMaka (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no violation of BLP. You are the one coming out with the red herring argument that Hilton is quoted ad nausem and that he is quoted over and over again. He takes up a whopping 3.1 lines of text, a small paragraph, which is a fully approriate re-hashing of the relevant events so the wikipedia reader can understand the situation better. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You can point out that, in your belief, Hilton's comments are hate-filled -- you just can't do it in the article, and that's all I'm saying. This discussion isn't just limited to what you want to talk about, InaMaka, it's to discuss all viewpoints, and how we can represent this in the article in an NPOV and BLP-compliant manner. I'm going to take another shot at removing the over and over, which I agree should not be in the article. BTW, just to get my biases out in the open, I think Prejean's an idiot and Hilton's an ass -- but you won't see those opinions from me in the article. Please, everyone, do the same. -- ArglebargleIV (talk)

What do you mean over and over? Its in the article in 1 spot, and it takes up 3.1 lines. There is additional material in the sources section, but that is outside the article itself. If anything that should be what goes, not the main article paragraph. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong -- I was going off a memory of the article from a few days ago. Hilton's quote is in there once -- while Prejean's quote is there twice. Fixed that. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>InaMaka, this is quite puzzling. Why do you keep removing the SINGLE use of Hilton's comment? The "over and over" you keep complaining about hasn't been there in days. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I DID NOT remove the single incident of the use of the word. It was move to the footnote, which his appropriate.--InaMaka (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate to move the quote to a footnote. Moving it to a footnote is an attempt to hide the quote because you don't like the looks of it. I put it back. (And, btw, it's spelled "pejorative".) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is about time to open up a request for comment on this one and get some fresh unattached outsiders opinions on this matter. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear TharsHammar, please crying about CENSORSHIP. The article refers to the inappropriate, offensive word that Hiton used in his verbal attack on Prejean. It is inappropriate to call other editors work "censorship". Please stop.--InaMaka (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think an RFC to gather a wider spectrum of opinion is called for. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No need for that. This article is about Carrie Prejean's life and work, not Perez Hilton's squalid vocabulary. Mr. Hilton has his own article. Please read WP:UNDUE. End of story. Antique Rose (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the *dubious tag* on Hilton's quote about "worst answer in history."

I removed the *Dubious tag* on Hilton's quote about "worst answer in history." Yes, I agree that the Hilton's comment is dubious in the traditional sense of the word. The fact that it is over the top is a major part of what makes it notable. But the sentence contains an accurate quote of Hilton. The issue for us on wikipedia is whether or not he said it WP:Verify -- NOT whether we agree with the content of his comment. No one disputes that he made the comment. Hoping To Help (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Inamaka put back the dubious tag, I'm re-removing it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Phrasing of Perez Hiltons criticisms

The heart of this dispute, and correct me if I am wrong, lies at the use of the full quote from Perez Hilton regarding Ms. Prejean. Some users think that we need to include the actual wording of the quote, in particular "dumb bitch", while other users prefer using suggestive terms such as pejorative, b-word, b----. There is plenty of discussion above about BLP concerns by some, about censorship concerns by others (on both sides, those who think we are censoring Perez's words to be kind to him, and those who think we are censoring to be kind to Ms. Prejean), and about a whole host of other issues. This really has just gone back and forth for the last month, its time for some fresh outside opinions. The question is: should we refer to Hilton's statements, and if so should we use the wording he uses. Thanks for your time. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Quote I think the best way to be NPOV here is to be 100% accurate. State his words exactly as he said them and there shouldn't be a BLP issue. Once we turn to our own viewpoints on how to refactor someone's public statements. That's when we're playing with fire.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Quote Inline (not in a footnote). The quote is important, and if it's important, it should be in the narrative, not hidden away. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ATTEMPT TO VOTE ON BLP There is NO reason given to quote the word bitch. ABC News did not quote the word. It can be placed in the footnote and it is fine. Keep in mind that the editors that demand the word "bitch" in the heart of article also supported the repetition the word "bitch", and c-word in the article at least five different times.--InaMaka (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Since I appear to be "one of those editors" -- exactly where did I support the repetition? Care to provide a cite on that? Secondly, this isn't an attempt to have a vote to supersede BLP -- part of the discussion here is whether or not it is a BLP violation in the first place. I don't think it is. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support use of the actual quote. Wikipedia is not bowlderized. Also object to continuing false allegations regarding repetition of the "dumb bitch" phrase. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Though "Bitch" isn't the most offensive term on the planet I think this is a pretty clear cut case of Wikipedia:Profanity. The caveat to this would be if we are going to give the full Hilton quotes about also wanting to call her a cunt, but I think we ought leave those more lengthy quote for the actual page on the controversy. - Schrandit (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• He didn't in fact call her a cunt; he called her a "c-word," and even then he didn't do it directly (he said that was what he was "thinking" when he called her a bitch). Exploding Boy (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just reading your defense for the inclusion of Hilton's hate-filled comments sounds ludicrous and laughable. Exploding Boy has reached the depth of explaining Hilton's so-called thought process when he was choosing between "bitch" and "cunt". I think Exploding Boy's defense of Hilton points out so many things but one of them is quite clear there is a clear attempt by some editors to make the argument that an article about Carrie Prejean MUST be defined by the opinion's of man that obviously hates Prejean and Hilton himself admits that in his great intellectual capacity could not decide to call her a "bitch" or a "cunt". Very enlightening. Yes, it is enlightening editors of Wikipedia feel the need to ignore the rules BLP and extensively quote a man that clearly hates Prejean and allow that person to dominate and control the article about Prejean. Prejean's own comments and activities (such as the FOX and Friends appearance) are eliminated. The violation of BLP is clear and forget about NPOV. This article quotes Hilton extensively on his opinion about Prejean and Prejean's comment about herself and her situation are routinely eliminated and deleted. Exploding Boy believes that the article about Prejean MUST include the hate-filled comments of Prejean, but Prejean's comments are deleted. This is just another example of letting mob-rule. This whole "let's have a vote" mentality flies in the face of BLP and NPOV and HARM and just about anything that Wikipedia claims that it is about. Exploding Boy has made my case for me. It is more important to him/her to make sure that Hilton gets his hits in on Prejean and Exploding Boy wants to use Wikipedia to spread the message of hate. When you point out that quoting of Hilton's hate-filled comments breaks the clear cut rules of Wikipedia of BLP, NPOV, and HARM then Exploding Boy screams about censorship. There is NO censorship. Exploding Boy is simply wrong and is choosing to ignore the rules of Wikipedia to make sure that Hilton's hate-filled comments are jammed into the article on Prejean, contrary to Wikipedia rules. This whole RFC section is sham designed to ignore the clearcut rules of BLP, NPOV, and HARM.--InaMaka (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you know what, InaMaka? I'm getting tired of your incivility and your personal comments. I am not "explaining Hilton's so-called thought process," I am simply informing another user about Hilton's statements: he said "I called her the 'b' word, and hey, I was thinking the 'c' word" [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95743]. Of all editors I would expect you to know this. Contrary to your accusations, I do not now, and have never advocated for the removal of Prejean's own comments. I did remove the Fox and Friends section as non-notable and with unencyclopedic sources; this issue was discussed above. Did you participate in the discussion? I also don't appreciate being accused of "using Wikipedia to spread the message of hate." I'm asking you one last time, InaMaka, to tone down your comments, stick to discussion of the topic rather than other editors, and remain WP:CIVIL. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with EB (you don't mind if we call you that, right?) The Squicks (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Everybody seems to, but you're the first person who's asked (and no, I don't mind :) Exploding Boy (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Mention in Main Article I'll say here again what has been said before. The fact that Hilton made this comment is what started off the controversy in the first place pretty much, which makes it very notable. And this controversy is a major part in her life. The Squicks (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As a matter of fact, I'd like to say (and this is my personal POV which I in now way would add to any Wiki page) that including this word does not make Prejean look bad. On the contrary, it makes Hilton look bad-- for being such a whiny, griping sore loser-- and makes Prejean look good. The average reader will see this and sympathize with Prejean. Heck, even the flipping Mayor of San Francisco openly and publicly sympathized with Prejean over Hilton- that shows you how much of a radioactive outlier Hilton is among LGBT Americans and how Hilton's comments make Prejean look. The Squicks (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the quote. Wikipedia isn't censored and this is relevant. AniMate^draw 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin: Please follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, I quote, "Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided."--InaMaka (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the relevant quote. As far as BLP goes, it reflects far more poorly on Hilton than on Prejean. Dayewalker (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unequivocally Oppose. My opinion can be summed up in two words: "So what?"
  The comment of an openly homosexual gossip blogger -- who likes to doodle the word "HO" on women's photos -- called her a "dumb bitch"?
  So what?
  Attention meatpuppets: The extent to which Hilton's comment reflects on Hilton, is irrelevant to whether it should be in Miss Prejean's biography.
  If it doesn't reflect on her, at all, then it's unworthy of inclusion.
  If it reflects negatively on her -- the only way that reporting that someone called her a "dumb bitch" can reflect on her -- then we need to discuss WP:HARM, WP:BLP, neutrality, WP:Undue weight, WP:Coatrack, and WP:Attack page. -- Rico 16:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To whom, exactly, is that "meatpuppet" remark directed? I'm not aware of any suspicious new editors trying to sway the vote here. And why have you labelled your comment "ricodumb"? To whom does that refer? And what, precisely, does the fact that Perez Hilton is openly gay, a fact you've repeated several times, have to do with anything besides your own bias? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was tipped off when an editor wrote, "[Exploding Boy] has gone as far as to canvas on the homosexual wiki project talk page to find support from users who share his views. I find this incredibly inappropriate".[25]

I found a section you created at the LGBT cabal, entitled "Carrie Prejean" (linking to the Carrie Prejean article). You wrote -- to this large, partisan audience -- "It would be helpful to have a few more editors watching this."[26][27]

You did not leave a note at the discussion here, that you had added your notice.

The LGBT cabal is far from neutral, when it comes to Carrie Prejean, so your section was not likely "to draw a wider range of ... editors to [the] discussion." Homosexual marriage advocates equate saying -- what Carrie Prejean said -- that "marriage should be between a man and a woman," with hate.[28] (See the "NoH8" painted on the beauty queens, that the Miss California USA organization got together to protest Proposition 8, right after Miss Prejean's answer?[29][30]). The hatred generated against Carrie has been extraordinary. "Prejean became the subject of a smear-campaign"[31] (that has been copied into the her biography of a living person, as part of that smear campaign).

The Votestacking subsection of the Wikipedia:Canvas#Inappropriate_canvassing section of the Canvassing behavioral guideline, states, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion."

Meatpuppetry is a Wikipedia term meaning the recruitment of (typically, new) editors to join a discussion, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion.

Wikipedia's Sock puppetry policy states, "the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of [...] attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged."

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to support your side of a debate.

Wikipedia:Canvas#Inappropriate_canvassing states, "Inappropriate canvassing is generally considered to be disruptive." (emphasis added)

Please stop attempting, "to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion."

adTHANKSvance,

Rico 04:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is rich coming from you and given your recent votestacking attempts here (02:42, 27 July 2009), here (02:44, 27 July 2009 ), here (03:16, 27 July 2009), and here (03:18, 27 July 2009 ). I have nothing further to add on this subject, save yet another request for you to drop the personal attacks and accusations. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I take great offense to the insinuation that I'm a meat puppet. I asked Rico to refactor on his talk page, and my request was deleted without comment[32]. So I'll ask it here. Please strike the personal attack from your comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The question was a vital part of the pageant, and it does seem to have played very poorly with at least one of the judges, possibly costing her the pageant. Inclusion of quote does not seem to me to be in violation of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, Wikipedia does not redact profanity from quotes. ABC might, but ABC has to deal with standards and practices. Wikipedia does not, and so Wikipedia is at liberty to quote profanity. Also, censoring the profanity may be considered editorializing on it, but I don't know how many people agree with that assessment. —harej (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC means Request For Comment, not "let's just ignore the BLP violation and vote for a BLP violation inclusion"

Wikipedia discussions about BLP are NOT matters of vote. If there is a BLP violation then there is a BLP violation. It does not matter if 400 editors agree with the BLP violation and demand that it be in the article and only two editors speak out against it. BLP is not controlled by votes. The Request of Comments above looks like a vote to me. It does not look like a series of comments, but rather an up or down vote. Besides it is NOT controlling.--InaMaka (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• And if it isn't a BLP violation, no amount of blustering on your part will make it one. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your comment sounds like you are more interested in proving me wrong than working to protect the reputation of a living person. BLP is a policy of Wikipedia. The rule is simple first do no harm. Your comment above is focusing on insulting me and proving me and it is NOT concerned in anyway toward following the BLP policy. Your comment above is merely a personal attack on me and it does not anyway contribute in a positive way toward explaining why Wikipedia must quote the hate-filled comment of Hilton about Prejean directly. It is focused on you winning an argument, proving me wrong, insulting me (another editor) and it does not focus on BLP--just winning an argument. Really focus on what's important. Why should Wikipedia assist Hilton in his attempt to ruin Prejean's reputation. In your comment above you aren't even concerned about that issue, just proving me wrong and showing that you can insult me with impunity.--InaMaka (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Printing Hilton's quote in the main body of the article, in my opinion, is not a BLP violation. It helps to explain the story, and it certainly reflects more on him than her. Saying that you are wrong is not a personal attack, and you have been the one insulting me. At no point have I argued for repetition of the quote -- yet you keep saying I have. My assumption of good faith towards you is starting to wear thin. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this has been rehashed more times than necessary...wouldn't a fair compromise be to include every public comment made by the Telecast judges?--The lorax (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It would not be a fair compromise--for several reasons. This article is about Carrie Prejean, not the controversy created during the 2009 Miss USA contest. If you feel the need to add that information (blow by blow repeats of all of the judges--which would violated NPOV by the way) please edit that in a NPOV manner. You can find the correct article for that information here: Miss USA 2009 controversy. Also, the hate-filled comments of Hilton are repeated word for word in THAT article. I don't know why ArglebargleIV and Exploding Boy and Hoping to Help and TharsHammar feel the need to repeat the b-word in this particular article. It serves no purpose other than to defame a living person. If a reader wants to know the exact wording then the reader can read the footnotes or the reader can follow the other articles that quote it or the reader can go to the biased article in Wikipedia entitled Miss USA 2009 controversy. Also, it is completely irrelevant if a topic has been talked about a huge amount. The point of Wikipedia is to create NPOV encyclopedia that does not harm any person's reputation--that is the touchstone. And that is the focus of this discussion, not whether you believe the discussion has lasted too long.--InaMaka (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of hearing the false, BS argument that TharsHammar keeps making that I am advocating "censorship". It is BS. Hilton's mean-spirited comments are all over the Internet and they are quoted in the Miss USA 2009 controversy article here in Wikipedia. Nothing is being censored. The information is in Prejean's article. It is just placed in the footnote. Also, there is no word for word quote of Hilton's hate-filled comments in the article about Hilton. Why does those comments HAVE to be in Prejean's article and not in Hilton's article? May be TharsHammar can explain that one?? Also, I noticed that editors removed information about Prejean appearing on FOX and Friends as a guest host. Positive information about Prejean that is fully sourced and notable is removed. The article is biased.--InaMaka (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I have never edited the Perez Hilton article, I have only looked at it once or twice so I can't explain to you something I do not know about. Furthermore, I had nothing to do with the FandF information being taken out, I would support inclusion of that information in the article as I saw her on the show and I thought she was a better host than either Doocey or Kilmeade. I have been busy recently so I haven't had time to look up or investigate new things. Why do I say censorship? Well censorship, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable" [33]. I think that is what is going on, someone considers the full quote objectionable, and they are attempting to delete and/or suppress the information into the footnotes and out of the main article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear TharsHammar, I can see that you can read the dictionary, but that does not mean you understand what you read. Hilton's hate-filled, narrow-minded comments (calling Prejean a "bitch" and a "cunt" for one example) is fully included in the other article on this topic Miss USA 2009 controversy. Hilton's misogynist comments are reprinted over and over again that article. No one has stated that they should be removed from that article. There is a blow by blow account of Hilton's hate-filled, narrow-minded comments in that article and they might be appropriate in that article--the risk of BLP violation is less in that article. I have not advocated for the comments being removed over there. So for you to cry censorhip is wrong, silly, and an attempt divert attention from your weak, pathetic arguments for the inclusion of a long litany of extensive quotes from the great mind of Perez Hilton in the Carrie Prejean article. You simply want Hilton's comments to dominate the article about Prejean, which is NOT what Wikipedia is about. Prejean's comments are routinuely eliminated and cut from the article as "irrelevant" or "not on topic" but lord knows that TharsHammar believes that the opinions Hilton's great intellectual mind MUST be quoted extensively and MUST control and dominate the article on Prejean. You are just flat out wrong to argue censorship. His words are in the footnote. His words are in the article about the controversy. You are simply wrong on this censorship issue and you are wrong about demanding that Prejean's comment be removed and Hilton quoted extensively. The article is about Prejean, not about what Hilton thinks about Prejean. We ALL know what Hilton thinks about Prejean. It is apparent that he hates her. That is pointed out in the heart of the article. That is enough.--InaMaka (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka, I think you need to be reminded that BLP is a two way street here. Perez Hilton is afforded the same protection as Carrie Prejean. Calling him hate filled and misogynist are not appropriate. Cut it out. AniMate^draw 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, AniMate, you are incorrect in that you are applying only one set of rules here. TharsHammer and Exploding Boy use the word "bitch" as often as they can during discussions and you are silent. Also, Hilton applied the word "bitch" to Prejean personally. I have been pointing out, correctly I might add, that Hilton's COMMENTS are hate-filled and misogynist and you don't like that, but at the same time you believe that we MUST quote Hilton's "bitch" comment. You are applying a double standard. Look I HAVE to use the phrase "hate-filled" when talking about Hilton's comments BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Are you claiming that you are going, using TharsHammar's term, CENSOR me simply because you do not like what I'm saying??? You are applying a double standard. I see that you voted to quote Hilton's "bitch" word but I CAN'T CALL HILTON'S WORDS "HATE-FILLED" even though they are. My phrase is NOT in anyway as insulting--and I'm only commenting on his speech--than the hate-filled comments of Hilton, but you want me to stop. I believe that as an admin you are pushing around your weight. You are not an unbiased third party. You want the word "bitch" in the article and you have stated that several times, but you want to stop calling Hilton's comments "hate-filled." Where TharsHammar to defend me from this so-called censorship???? If TharsHammar is really a Great Advocate for freedom of speech, and by extension you too, why is TharsHammar defending me??? The answer is simple he/she does not care about censorship or freedom of speech. TharsHammar just wants to jam the profanity into the article to damage Prejean's reputation in contrvention to BLP and NPOV. It is unnecessary and you know it. It violates Profanity and you know it. It violates BLP and you know it. And of course it allows the comment of a person that clearly hates Prejean to dominate and control the biography of Prejean. It violates BLP, Profanity, NPOV, etc. Go ahead block me. If you feel that is what you need to do to shut me up and control my speech. Go ahead and block while I argue that Wikipedia is NOT control by mob-rule. This whole vote thing is a merely an attempt to jam a negative pejorative into the heart of the article on Prejean and using a mob-rule vote to simply flat ignore BLP, NPOV, and Profanity. This the reason that Wikipedia gets bad reviews in various publications because mob-rule does live and breath in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules to protect LIVING PEOPLE but the mob just votes to ignore BLP and BLP is thrown out the window. There NO WAY that if one of President Obama's detractor called him a "bitch" or a "cunt" or any number of pejoratives available in this world would Wikipedia editors even allow that comment to go in the article on President Obama. You know that, but obviously don't care and you are an admin who supposed to follow these rules that have been put in place by Jimbo to protect LIVING PEOPLE from defamation of character. I'm not even asking that it removed from the article (and that claim is just a lie), I'm just asking that it be moved to a footnote. If this was Obama's article then it would not even make it into the footnote. It would be removed so fast it would make your head spin. You are an admin why aren't you following the rules???? What rules??? BLP, NPOV, and Profanity??--InaMaka (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Using or quoting Perez Hilton is just that: quoting him. Describing him as hate-filled or misogynist is your opinion, and it's an opinion many don't agree with. Some would say his quote is representative of a someone from a group of people frustrated with laws designed to keep them from enjoying the same rights that others do. Our interpretations of his quote don't matter though, and our interpretations don't belong on the article or on the talk page. Fact: Hilton used the word bitch. Opinion: He's hate-filled and misogynist. There is a stark and clear difference. You can type in all caps all you want, it's not going to change anything. Your emotional attachment here is obvious, and it's obviously not doing you any favors. Rather than get angry, there are steps you can take to address your grievances. Since you seem displeased about the direction of the RfC, why not take this to the BLP noticeboard. As long as you and those who disagree with you are able to keep your comments to a minimum and let outsiders air their views without being overwhelmed, I'm thinking that would be productive. If there is still dissatisfaction after the noticeboard, there are other steps of dispute resolution. AniMate^draw 01:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quoting Perez Hilton is just that a quote, however, we can choice WHAT we quote, can't we?? Of course we can. As I have stated over and over again and you have decided to ignore is that Wikipedia has a BLP rule in place that demands that we be conservative in what we write and that, to quote you, is a fact. You are obviously emotional attached also because you are choosing to ignore both BLP and NPOV. As I have stated over and over again, and you have ignored, is that Wikipedia does not allow editors to place just any derogatory comment made about President Obama in the article about Obama. Wikipedia has the BLP rule in place for a reason and one reason is that article must be NPOV. You are flat out wrong in calling the moving of the word "bitch" to the footnote to be "censorship". That is BS and you know it. No amount of faux detachment is going to change that fact. We as Wikipedians do not HAVE to quote Hilton in the heart of the article. We can choose to quote him in the footnote and it the reader still has access to the information. And your censorship comment is just BS. The reader can read all of Hilton's comments in the article concerning the controversy, but of course you can't read it in Hilton's article of course because it has been removed. And finally you have a double standard. You want me stop calling Hilton's comments hate-filled but you are adamant that the article MUST quote Hilton's personal attack on Prejean as a "bitch". And no amount of argument on your part changes the fact that you are applying a double standard. I call his comments hate-filled, which they are, and you call for me to shut up. But at the same time it is just perfect that an article about Prejean is dominated and controlled by the word "bitch" from someone who obviously hates Prejean. That violates BLP and NPOV. Also, your comment about Hilton's comment being representative of a class of people is just flat out wrong. Hilton personally attacked Prejean for stating an opinion that exactly the same as President Obama and I don't hear Hilton calling Obama a "bitch" or a "cunt" or anything else. That is just a silly argument. It was a comment directed a specific person and there is clear hatred in it.--InaMaka (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to kick Wikipedia:Profanity into here. Isn't this just like the example given there? Why say "bitch" when we can just elude to prejorative terms? - Schrandit (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that prejorative as in Prejean? Jabberwockgee (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The guideline tells us to quote in full, and in the example given the original terms still appear in the article. InaMaka doesn't seem to want them there at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not true Exploding Boy. Don't make things up to defend yourself. I have argued that it can be placed in the footnote. That covers it just fine. You keep flat out stating incorrect comments about what I have advocated. As AniMate states (but not to you, of couse, since he/she agrees with you): Cut it out.--InaMaka (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the guideline says that profanity should be used when in full quotes or not at all. As we do not have (and do not need) the full quote we ought avoid the publication of the uncessecary term. - Schrandit (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what it says. What that sentence means, if you read it in full, is that we are not at liberty to change what some may consider offensive terms to render then less offensive: "words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." In other words, we must use "bitch," because that's what was said: not "b-word," "b***," "b---" or any other such form. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That senence was proceeded with: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." If we are going to use the quote then yes, we must use the word. As we are not using the quote, we ought not use the word. - Schrandit (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with being vague in this instance, by saying that "Hilton referred to Prejean using a profanity" (which is apparently InaMaka's preferred version), is that it makes things appear much worse than they really were. "Bitch" is not generally considered terribly profane these days. It is commonly heard even on prime time TV. In fact, I can't recall one instance when I've noticed it being censored in any form of media. Changing Hilton's actual comment in this manner will just leave the reader wondering what terrible thing he must have said that's so awful we can't print it. In this sense, it does make the article less informative and accurate. I could perhaps understand all this fuss if he'd called her a baby-raping shit-eating cum guzzler, or something equally extreme, but come on; he called her a bitch. I don't think it was clever or well-considered, but I also don't think it's so shocking that we as an encyclopedia must avoid all mention of it. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

EB, please strike out or remove that profanity above, it's not helping the discussion at all. The Squicks (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if it bothers you. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I doesn't bother me in the moral sense, truthfully- I would totally download that hentai gif if I saw it at 4Chan, but Prejean is still a living person. The Squicks (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you realize, I wasn't saying that about her; only pointing out that "bitch" is hardly extreme profanity that needs to be alluded to indirectly. And... ew. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do realize that, yes. As to the question of whether or not the term is profane, it seems to me to be tangent to the main point here- it was that comment that spurned the controversy and is thus notable. End stop.

No worries about the last point, I was only being a bit cheeky. And we must not forget Rules One and Two, after all. The Squicks (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I figured. I was kidding.

And I agree with you that the comment is notable. As notable as any of that whole nonsense is, anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a not at the BLP noticeboard asking for some outside opinions in addition for some comments on the behavior being exhibited at this talk page. I've left the note as neutral as possible, and would appreciate everyone not piling on, as my experience tells me outside editors tend to avoid commenting on posts that devolve into the same fighting that is going on at talk pages. While I fully expect InaMaka to respond, as they should since I specifically discuss their behavior, I really want to hear some outside opinions. So if you absolutely must comment, keep it brief. AniMate^draw 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully it'll get more attention than last time. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how WP:Profanity would apply. The word was at the centre of the controversy which she is famous for, no? WP:Profanity says to use the word when an "omission would cause the article to be less informative, ...or accurate," that would be the case as I see it. As for WP:BLP, I don't see where it violates it, the word was said, it is not being sensationalist, or a "titillating claim" and it was widely reported by the media/WP:RS. And since the word is at the centre of her notoriety, it would be in many ways WP:NPOV to purge the page of the remark, which is rather the oppoiste of what you're saying. - Epson291 (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)