Talk:Carrie Prejean/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Prejean's Credibility Issue

In light of the rising tide of evidence that Ms. Prejean has not been entirely honest in her representations on the existence, timing, quantity or circumstances surrounding the creation of nude, partially nude and/or erotic materials featuring her, should the issue of her credibility be raised? Are their other areas besides nude/erotic materials where her honesty has been an issue and there is a weight of evidence one way or another? Luitgard (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The man she claimed was a boyfriend she was "deeply, deeply in love with" (who has countered that he was merely someone she met in a hotel room only once, after hooking up on the Internet) has said on tape he's "never known anyone who lies as much as she does". That might be a start. You might also find some leads on her imdb discussion page; I think someone there pointed out that her timing as to when she met athlete Michael Phelps is presented innacurately in her book. The age at which she was "saved" has also shifted around...though I don't know how a young person raised in an evangelical household gets "saved"...don't you have to have a lapse in faith first? 4.68.248.65 (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm hesitant to create a separate credibility section as it could be setting a bad precedent. Everybody makes statements that can be disputed, and think what a mess it would be if every politician has a "credibility" section in their article where partisan extremists would fight endlessly. It seems best to just take each instance on its own. Can you give citation links for the quotes you cite? I cannot find them as you've written them, but I could believe they do exist in slightly different form. Luitgard (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sex tapes (plural)

Apparently the "single biggest mistake of her life" actually encompasses at least 7 additional sex tapes, as reported here. I'm sure we'll get plenty of additional sourcing over the next news cycle. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I updated the sex tape section on 12 November, 20:59, to include mention of the fact that multiple erotic visual depictions were said to have been created by Prejean at the same time she created the video she's admitted to. The original sources for these assertions are TMZ & Radaronline. As they differ on the numbers, I left the reference vague in that regard. OK, time to get out and enjoy the weekend.  :) Luitgard (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

ObiterDicta, could we discuss what I would argue is your rather precipitous conclusion that any mention of Keith Lewis's sexual orientation in the section of this article on Prejean's Larry King interview was "gratuitous"? It went unchallenged for quite some time in an article that has been the scene of rather contentious debate on many an issue. What unique insights do you bring to the matter that moved you to act in a summary fashion without seeking consensus? Luitgard (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was precipitous, also unilateral, just like every other change on a wiki. Since when did Wikipedia lose "you can edit this article now." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as you're willing to discuss the matter, I'd say all's well that ends well. :) Luitgard (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article says that Lewis is the director of the beauty pageant, not an activist, and he's not commenting on Prejean's views on gay marriage anyway, so I fail to understand why his sexual orientation is relevant. The article does not mention any one else's sexual orientation, other than, perhaps, activitists on either side of the issue, and even then only implicitly. The often-married Larry King is famously heterosexual, for example, but this article does not label him as straight. You see where I'm going with this, right? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with ObiterDicta here. Information on the sexual orientation of someone other than the subject of the article herself is at best of dubious relevance to the article at all, except in an instance where that individual's orientation is clearly and specifically relevant to the content related to that person. That becomes even more important if the person is living. As there is no direct statement from Lewis himself indicating that his orientation is directly related to the content related to him, such an apparent linkage could be seen as being a violation of {{WP:SYNTH]], and there's no particular overwhelmingly obvious reason to have the material included in the first place, so it could safely be removed without damage to the article. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

1st Exploding Boy. Can you honestly say objectivity on this topic has been your strong point? You don't seem to be really committed to NPOV in this article. I have made a point of trying to include information that calls the credibility of all parties into question, as no one in this whole affair really comes out of it smelling like a rose. One should not come across as partisan, that isn't the spirit of a good editor. We all ideally should try to argue both sides of an issue. If there is not sufficient representation of all perspectives here, Wikipedia loses credibility. ObiterDicta, thanks for coming back to address the issue. As to your comment that there is not mention of other people's orientation here, that there isn't, when it is probably relevant, may well be a failing. For example, sexually orientation may not be the most salient point in explaining Perez Hilton's actions, comments and motivations, but it has been argued that given his history, having him act as a judge was rather ill advised. I would say that theme needs to be developed. Does the Miss California pageant have a POV on the issue of gay marriage that is out of the mainstream of U.S. opinion? It certainly seems possible. Would a reasonable person suspect Mr. Lewis's orientation has something to with his hostile take on Prejean or the choice of Perez Hilton as a judge? I'd say let the reader decide. Politically correct reticence can be taken too far. This episode doesn't rise to the level of importance of other recent examples of blind adherence to PC extremes, but a bit more discussion of the agendas of Prejean's critics does seem warranted. Some more context as to the motives of two of Prejean's most damning critics in the article seems in order, and I don't believe in giving Donald Trump as pass either. I would argue an examination of Trump's character and his motives and behavior in this episode would severely damage his standing as a credible commentator as well. I'm working on cites for that. The mention of Lewis's orientation in the exact location that it was in may not be the best way to address the concerns I've raised above, but I would like to hear your thoughts on how to do so. Thanks and regards. Luitgard (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so you didn't see where I was going with my comment above. You are asking whether Lewis's sexual orientation had anything to do with his reactions to Prejean. Yet you are not asking similar questions about Donald Trump. Or, perhaps to put it more broadly, the line of reasoning you are taking assumes that gays should be treated as having a potential bias on issues related to sexual orientation, but the heterosexual point of view should be assumed to be neutral.ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I did see your direction, but I do feel that in an instance where the right to equal status for a minority that has a clear history of suffering discrimination has been denied, that is is not unreasonable to consider that members of that group may have a greater sensitivity to the actions and comments anyone who would seem to wish to perpetuate their unequal status. Trump's bias in this matter seems more likely to come from the fact that Prejean questioned his sensitivity and prerogatives. When the two men's possible motives for pique are so clearly different, it would seem obtuse to treat them in exactly the same way on the topic of sexual orientation. It is not likely to be an issue in Trump's case, so why mention it? I think an admirable desire not to discriminate, may, in this case may be interfering with common sense. Luitgard (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So your answer is basically yes, you do think that gays have a "greater sensitivity" to slights and that readers should be made aware of whether someone quoted in the the article is gay, even if it has no direct relevance to the subject they are discussing. I disagree; it's not "common sense" to suggest that gays will throw some gay hissy fit every time they comment on someone who opposes same-sex marriage. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I said "Let the reader decide". But I've come to feel that a deeper context would probably be better to avoid misunderstands like this one. Deepest thanks for your input. Lewis's comments may well be insights gained thru his unique experience with Prejean. But they do seem intemperate, and they are a departure in style from his admirably restrained prior comments. And saying one wishes to deny someone equal rights is far more than a "slight", but that's not a topic for here. Luitgard (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, from your inital comment, I had assumed that inclusion of Lewis's sexual orientation had been discussed, and I was stepping on a consensus. However, I cannot find this discussion. Until a consensus emerges for inclusion, I think the mention of sexual orientation should be omitted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a broader discussion of the question of how representative the composition and values of the pageant's management and judges are of mainstream U.S. values might be the best way to approach the issue. I suspect the pageants would like to claim Miss U.S.A. represents the country, but there is a substantial contingent in the press and public that suspects that the pageant would prefer she represent the pageant management views, which are possibly not in sync with the U.S. majority's. This conflict probably has colored the participants perceptions of one another. I'll try and develop that theme in the article. Comments welcome, but if you feel you lived up to your nym by making a comment in passing and wish to move on, that works too. Luitgard (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

mainstream U.S. values You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. I think it would be better to discuss Carrie Prejean, the subject of the article, even if you've made the shocking discovery that gay men are involved in the beauty pageant industry. Oh, and read WP:OWN. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I do not endorse those arguably sexist "mainstream" values, but this is not the place to discuss that. I just have added a citation to this article stating what they have been reported to be. The cit. was from the NY Times, but there are many others. People are often defined by the controversies they find themselves in, and therefore the context of the controversies will aid in understanding them as a subject. Believe it or not, there are people who do not realize that the subculture that does such an admirable job of developing and promoting female beauty owes so much to the gay community. Luitgard (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed mention of Keith Lewis's sexual orientation until such time as a proper context and consensus can be found. Thoughts on my comments above would be appreciated. Failing those, I'll proceed as outlined above as time permits.Luitgard (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

have fun with that. I'll probably leave, as you suggest above that I should, after today. I'm only back editnig Wikipedia because it's a long holiday weekend. In my normal life I typically don't have time, especially when the payoff is engaging in conversations like this one. I suspect that other editors may not agree with what you're tyring to do, however. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, not to worry, the concept is most assuredly not originally mine. It has been fully articulated by others, but in the more moderate to conservative press which you, quite understandably, might not chose to read, given the signal to noise ratio. If you have any interest, you might want to look at the Miss USA 2009 controversy article where such themes are already somewhat developed. Maybe you could check out the Nidal Hasan article before you go and see if it needs your attentions in passing. And no, I'm not suggesting you leave, far from it. Your name made me think your specialty might be comments in passing rather than long term engagements. Thoughtfull comments in passing are often the best because of the objectivity they can bring. Luitgard (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Luitgard, please confine your comments to discussion of the article rather than editors.

Who has argued, as you claim, that given Perez Hilton's history, having him act as a pageant judge was "rather ill advised," and what does that have to do with his being gay? The question you pose ("Would a reasonable person suspect Mr. Lewis's orientation has something to with his hostile take on Prejean or the choice of Perez Hilton as a judge? I'd say let the reader decide") seems utterly irrelevant to this article. Your suggestion is that people who criticize Prejean do so because they are gay; this does not seem like a reasonable conclusion. The aim in writing a Wikipedia article is not to seek out sources that seem to support our position on an issue, but only to report the facts. I fail to see how the sexuality of people who criticize Prejean is relevant at all.

In addition, there appears to be far too much focus on the one issue of Prejean's pageant answer in the discussion here, and a little too much original research/personal opinion getting in the way. Many of those involved, and many uninvolved commentators, including many who happen to be gay, have given reasons for disliking her answer that have little or nothing to do with her personal opposition to same-sex marriage. For one example, Dan Savage recently pointed out (and he wasn't the first to do so) that Prejean clearly believed at the time she gave her answer that same-sex marriage was legal throughout America; she said it was "great" that people could choose same-sex marriage despite her own view being that marriage should be reserved for opposite-sex couples. Savage's objection and criticism to her answer was not based on her negative personal view of same-sex marriage, but rather on her lack of knowledge of current affairs (ie: not knowing, especially as Miss California, that same-sex marriage isn't legal in the vast majority of US states). Similarly, people involved in the pageant criticized her answer for being divisive. Even Hilton said "There are various other ways she could have answered that question and still stayed true to herself without alienating millions of people."

The real problem, and this isn't just my opinion (again I refer you to Dan Savage) isn't that she stated her opinion, but that after she was called out for betraying her lack of knowledge she decided to parlay the little bit of media attention into a career as a spokesperson for the anti-gay Christian right, espousing a position she claimed in her supposedly truthful answer that she didn't have. That's when she really began to draw negative attention, and that's when it began to emerge that she wasn't who she claimed to be at all. As Savage put it,

This aspect of Prejean's life—her ownership, control and delight in her own sexuality—is newsworthy because Prejean was working to deny others the same ownership and control over their sexualities. Prejean endorsed discrimination against others based on sexual expression and that invited scrutiny of her own sexual expression. Prejean wasn't exposed . . . because she believes that same-sex marriage is wrong; the woman who replaced Prejean as Miss California also opposes same-sex marriage and no one has pried into her private life . . . Prejean was exposed because the only justification she was able to give for her opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians was her good Christian upbringing (her parents had an ugly divorce), the way her Christian values shaped her worldview, and her moral superiority. None of that stood up to scrutiny.[1]

Exploding Boy (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice response Exploding Boy, but sadly with the end of the holiday weekend, it will take me a while, maybe a week or longer, to get back to it in a meaningful fashion. For now, I will say if you feel that being profoundly partisan help will create a better article, I'd have to disagree and will wish to ask for administrative guidance on whether such a stance on the part of the editors is beyond discussion in this forum. I'll also look for guidance in the rules and guidelines as my time allows. Please feel free to do the same and post what you find here. I seriously doubt a confrontational, contentious, highly partisan approach is encouraged. From what I know, it is not. If such damaging behavior cannot be curbed, it bodes ill for Wikipedia. I am partial to Dan Savage, but that is off the topic. Catch you later! :) Luitgard (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "profoundly partisan." This isn't politics. As for administrative guidance, you can read WP:TALK for yourself; talk pages are meant for discussion of improvements to articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Keith Lewis' orientation is relevant in this context. His coworker, the former beauty queen Sharon Moakler (sp?), is straight -- or at least, I've read of her having a boyfriend -- and she was vocally critical of Prejean, as well. (In fact, didn't she resign when Prejean was at first allowed to keep her crown?) As discussed in the section above, questioning everyone's "credibility" across the board would not be productive, and similarly, identifying all the various groups people are identified with would make for needlessly looooooong, unfocused entries. Will we point out that people are Jews, parents, teachers, whathaveyou every time we reference them? As an aside, as far as a homosexual such as Perez Hilton supposedly not belonging on a panel that judges female beauty, would you support removing all decision-making male homosexuals, such as possibly Mr. Lewis, from the organization? (I guess the lesbians could stay?) Hmmmm....Why does that sound SO wrong? Signed codenamemary - - who does not know how to create a signature!!!!!!!

• Look at your talk page--it says right there how you can sign. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What's a talk page? (See....hopeless!) codenamemary

This page is a talk page. And then each user has a talk page; your talk page is at User talk:Codenamemary. There is some welcome information for you there. --Closeapple (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I know how to sign remarks now. It's a whole new world! You will all be happy to know I signed a remark discussing "Jane Eyre", and my suggestion was incorporated into article. We are on a roll. Codenamemary (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the information may have been included to indicate that the "we" referred to in the quote from him now at the end of the ""Larry King interview" section was the gay community. While I can understand that, straight people had to endure just as much of the controversy as gays did, so I think it might be going a bit far to make it seem that he was himself only limiting the people being discussed there to the gay community, unless statements from him elsewhere make it clear that is what he meant. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Larry King Interview

This page makes it sound like Larry King asked Carrie Prejean only once about why she agreed to settle. That's not how it happened. The first time he asked, she said she couldn't answer because of the confidentiality clause in the settlement. He pushed for an answer anyway, including showing disbelief that the reason for settlement could possibly be confidential. After he continued badgering her about it, she said he was being inappropriate. He continued anyway (well beyond what a reasonable person would do) and she finally covered up her mike and stopped the interview. This page is misleading in favor of Larry King and against Carrie Prejean.68.155.26.70 (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article says that, "...King questioned Prejean...", which implies that he asked her multiple questions. "Questioning" is more akin to "interrogating" than to "asking a question". Regarding the bias, it's hard to put that interview in a positive light for her; she did not come off well. The article states several 'official' reports of feedback from the interview. Do you have references that give her a positive review for the interview? Agentchuck (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)