Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 5 May 2009

Beauty Pageants Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Here is the Spanish article of Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, for those who want to translate it. I just dont have time.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Media:Example.ogg --66.68.167.164 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on Final scores

In this article of AP it is clearly said "Because the contestant's scores are supposed to be kept secret, it may never be known whether Prejean would have won had she not drawn Hilton's question." So what is the source of the final scores in this page? I would like to mark it source requested. BTW, I don't think "homophobic" is NPOV here. CnWei (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Miss CA homophobic comments?

This needs to be added to the article. Now.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/19/entertainment/e110634D17.DTL
--Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Must every minutia of detail be added to EVERY Wiki page? Is it really that important? Seriously, would you find this in an encyclopaedia? Anyone else agree with me?Dryamaka (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with the topic of the article? It doesn't. Save it for an article on homophobia.Dryamaka (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It occured in the telecast. THAT is how its relevant. You didn't see it? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, saw it. Still doesn't make it worth putting in the article. If we had a comment for each and every of the 51 contestants , the article would obviously be too wordy. Remember, this isn't a play-by-play of the telecast here. Save it. Dryamaka (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's received substantial coverage, commanding a non-trivial part of many articles about the event, not unlike the Caitlin Upton incident did in 2007; it, rightly, IMHO, enjoys a mention in Miss Teen USA 2007. 69.212.14.168 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/199.8.26.10|199.8.26.10]] (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This has received news coverage on several networks, moreso than who the winner was. I'm going to add it. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I guess anything qualifies for a Wiki entry or mention at the least. And I love how people make up damned near any 'rule' (sometimes on the spot) as a reason or defense for adding. And since when did this turn into a gossip column? What's next to qualify for an article? My dog?69.204.225.103 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would hope after reading this shit (not all, but most, was) up above that it was written BEFORE the media blitz. The bottom line: Conical had it right. So if it had been about interracial marriage, would you people still be shrugging it off and saying it shouldn't be added to the article? Yahoo's front page did a story on it right after the show was over. It was big news. Also, I wasn't asking for a play-by-play of the telecast. Don't be an asshole. Dryamaka, you're basically on probation as it is, right? Oh, and I'm erasing the homophobic bullshit from the anonymous IP, lets keep the site neat and tidy. And that last entry, man, shut up if you don't have anything to contribute, asshole. Anyway, I'm also predicting some fall-out, i.e. Miss California being dropped from endorsement deals (yes even the runners-up get them sometimes). If or when this occurs, it deserves mention, too. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if it's 'homophobic' or 'freedom of religion' (arguments I've seen elsewhere on the Internet), since it's been all over the news, clearly it does deserve to be in the article.199.8.26.10 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dryamaka wasn't poking at anything 'homophobic' if you would read between the lines. S/He was merely questioning the need for that section in the article, and probably before it was realized just how much attention it would receive. You evidently have a defensive base against homophobia, which is ok, but please refrain from bias opinions in articles and discussions (remember, these articles should provide FACT not OPINION), not to mention the foul language. I am re-instating Dryamaka's changes, as they are part of the chain of discussion had here. Lastly, you are in no position to determine who is or is not on 'probation.'65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Snap! Anyway, if I recall, Perez Hilton stated that it was the way she gave her answer that caused her to lose, not her actual position (he did call her a 'dumb b*tch,' but I'm sure that's just part of his persona). The current wording seems to imply that he said it was her position that caused her to lose. Am I right in thinking this, or am I reading too much into it?199.8.26.10 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, by God, you're right! It's as if we've lost sight of that.69.204.225.103 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm, or...? Just trying to be clear.199.8.26.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Agreeing! Great point. Wiki's turning into a biased gossip column sadly.69.204.225.103 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters what I think, but if it had been about interracial marriage, but had not led to any notable coverage, than it should not have been in the article. Just curious: Does anyone know the winner's position on Same-Sex Marriage?199.8.26.10 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Dumb bitch"? Eh, the shoe fits. But that's beside the point. I think its funny everybody wanted to argue with me when I was the first to mention the glaring omission from the article. Oh, and there's no way in hell the question being about interracial marriage and the chick's answer being the same bigoted thing NOT causing a media blitz. It would practically start FIRES. So that doesn't really make sense. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rage, please stop. We get your point: you're very pro-gay rights. The point has been grossly made and there is no need for further discussion. Just stop.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! This is not a forum!(Yes, I'm aware that this comment is as much forum-related as others. Still!)199.8.26.10 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently their IS need for further discussion because people keep attempting (and failing) to rationalize it not being mentioned in the article. Which is solid bullshit. Period. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All instances of profanity will be deleted and reported as vandalism, per Misplaced Pages Rules.Dryamaka (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when is a beauty contest a litmus test for anyones socio-political world views? WTF was this clown thinking when he even asked that question? and GOOD FOR HER that she gave her honest opinion. I would think less of her had she not. It is NOT homophobic ( a misnomer if ever there was one; Phobic=fear, I believe she showed absolutely none ) to state her beliefs wether you agree with them or not. Grow the hell up. Angelus13 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelus13 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Its 2009, he asked the question because its relevant. Why do you have a problem with him asking the question? Its funny when people try to rationalize bigotry. She's a bigot. Blah, phobic is fear, along the same lines as "if you're too open-minded your brains will fall out". You would NOT be saying the same thing if the question had been about interracial marriage (something middle America still has an issue with). Also, get a screen name. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote claims source but isn't

OK, so I was just looking for a source for a quote, to see if an apparent typo was in the source or not (but having looked again, I guess the typo was just a figment of my imagination). The article currently cited as number 10, Malkin's "Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama", doesn't contain the quote followed by the #10 footnote indicator. (#11 seems to match up, so it doesn't seem to just be an off-by-one.) Is there an actual source for that quote?

This was denied by Lewis, who said he did not release a statement to the celebrity blogger and said, "I support Carrie's right to express her personal beliefs even if they do not coincide with my own, I believe the subject of gay marriage deserves a great deal more conversation in order to heal the divide it has created"

J. Randall Owens | (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pinknews.co.uk

Any reason we should include speculation pertaining to Miley Cyrus's twitter account on this page? - Schrandit (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, not really needed. The article is about Miss USA 2009; let's leave it at that and not have it turn into a gossip column as I'm sure Rage would love to see just that.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Unrelated Comments in 'Discussion'

Effective 4/27/09: any comments in 'Discussion' for this article that are not related to the core subject will be deleted in order to clean up a bit. It's become too messy and appears to have strayed quite a ways from the original topic, not to mention this is not a forum. Please keep discussions related to topi(s) of article. Additional headers for topics in the articles will be considered based on validity, as per Wiki rules and standards.Dryamaka (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And you're a guy with a lot of warnings on probation. And I'm right with what I've been saying -- people are trying to rationalize (and failing) NOT adding mention of the incident to the article. Food for thought. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned, and what is there is sufficient without going ad nauseum and straying away from the core topic. If you would like to continue, please submit and create an article separate of this. This is not a forum, nor is it a gossip channel for biased people to exploit their thoughts.Dryamaka (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge "controversy" with Carrie Prejean article?

The article section Miss USA 2009#Controversy over gay marriage question is almost exactly redundant with Carrie Prejean#Controversy, the latter of which points to the former as the "main article" on the topic. Should the latter be shortened? How is this redundancy best handled? --JeredF (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on creating an article about the controversy in the next few days and then redirecting both of those sections there while leaving a few sentences about the incident. - Schrandit (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, but it may start a war with 'Ragemanchoo82' who tends to think that this entire article here should be devoted to that topic alone (see posts in 'Discussion' amidst the vulgarity...). I think that entire section here should be removed and created as its own article (as you suggest) since it really has nothing to do with the core issues of this article anyway, and simply deleting it here would just make most sense, but then you would have to call yourself a homophobe according to Rage.65.215.94.13 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The incident hardly warrants its own article. It's questionable whether it's worthy of including in an encyclopedia at all. However, since several editors will blow a gasket if anyone tries to remove it completely, it will have to be included somewhere. The question is, where. At present, we have sections in Carrie Prejean#Miss USA 2009 controversy, Miss USA 2009#Controversy over gay marriage question and Perez Hilton#Miss USA 2009 that cover exactly the same material with varying degrees of neutrality, plus regular attempts at the Alan Duncan article to characterize some offhand comment he made about Prejean's response on a tv comedy show as a death threat. This is ridiculous.

I propose that the we attempt to fix this mess and head off any more insanity by keeping the information at this article page with no more than a few sentences at Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton directing readers here. It will be much easier to contain, and will prevent attempts by certain editors to introduce bias into the reporting. This will also prevent a barely newsworthy and hardly encyclopedic mini-"controversy" from being given undue weight. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, Exploding Boy, you are the one editor that keeps jamming Hilton's hate-filled comments into article after article. It is NOT encyclopedic to repeat word for word Hilton's Nazi level personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. You have jammed those hate-filled comments into Carrie Prejean's article over and over and when anyone attempts to remove the hate-filled, nasty, one-sided, biased comments of Hilton you scream "Censorship." It is entirely possible to cover Hilton's hatred of Prejean and Prejean's beliefs without having to repeat word for word Hilton's negative, mean, nasty, hate speech. It is NOT what Misplaced Pages is designed for and it is NOT appropriate according to BLP.--InaMaka (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I said the same thing and tried in vein...did you see all the stuff here by Rage?69.204.225.103 (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka, first of all I strongly suggest you tone down the personal attacks and the hyperbole. I take neither Prejean's nor Hilton's side on this issue, which as you know I think isn't even worthy of inclusion here at all. Since certain people are bound and determined to include it in Misplaced Pages, I'm simply trying to ensure that we do so neutrally. I have not been adding Hilton's comments anywhere, in fact. But in any case, that is not what this particular discussion is about. Here we are trying to discuss where to locate coverage of the incident. Would you please try to stay on topic. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy: I have NOT engaged in any personal attacks and for you to say that I did is a a false accusation. I have pointed correctly that Hilton's comments about Prejean ARE a personal attack of the most nasty, hate-filled manner. My comments about Hilton's comments is a FACT, nothing else and when Misplaced Pages repeats his personal attacks Misplaced Pages is taking sides in his nasty, hate-filled vindictive attacks on the character of Miss Prejean. We, as Wikipedians, can cover these his topics without repeating word for word is use of the word "bitch" and his reference to the word "cunt." When we repeat his nasty, unnecessary, hate-mongering comments we are victimizing Miss Prejean just as much as Hilton is. There is NO place for Misplaced Pages is jump on this nasty, hate-filled bandwagon. There is a more reasonable, rational way to cover this topic. I will remove each and every time the rules of BLP are violated. Also, this is a page to talk about ALL aspects of the Miss USA controversy and you are not going to dictate to me what I can or cannot say. You do not decide for everyone on Misplaced Pages what is "on topic" or not on topic. And that is a fact.--InaMaka (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relax, InaMaka. I'm not trying to stop you from talking about Miss USA. I'm saying that in this section we're trying to discuss where (in which article) to locate the issue on Misplaced Pages. However, this is not a place to discuss all aspects of the Miss USA controversy; article talk pages exist only to discuss improvements to articles. They are not general discussion forums. This is why I keep asking you to stay on topic.

You're correct in saying that Hilton's remarks were a personal attack on Prejean. However, we do not censor what we include in Misplaced Pages. If we're going to include any reporting of the controversy, then we must include what was said by the two major players. Hilton called Prejean a stupid bitch. That's a large part of the controversy, so we must include it, just as we include her response. Instead of threatening to engage in edit wars, it would be far more productive to engage in discussion of how to improve the relevant articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Source for scores

No idea where we'll get an official citation for the scores but I've removed it because it mucks up the heading format & looks bad. The scores were obviously shown during the telecast... anyone up for citing that? Not quite sure how it should be done... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Contestant Gallery

Removed the 'contestant gallery' not really needed here, honestly. Especially with only one of the 51 contestants? It looks so weird, stands out, and is basically just an appendix to the list of contestants anyway.65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

removed from article

On the April 24, 2009, edition of Have I Got News For You, a British MP Alan Duncan was asked his opinion of Prejean's comments on same sex marriage. Duncan replied, "If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me, won't you?" Duncan's comments were immediately condemned by various group including Public Advocate president Eugene Delgaudio who stated: "Public Advocate is concerned when government officials from abroad advocate murdering our citizens. The British ambassador in Washington should be sent home immediately and the president of the United States should sever diplomatic relations for a period of time.” The pastor at Prejean's church also condemned Duncan's comments. The Rev. Miles McPherson stated: "You cannot say it was a joke. The man is a leading politician who may soon have great government power. Murder is murder in any context." Responding to the controversy, Duncan said in an interview in a London newspaper, The Independent: "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. I'll send her a box of chocolates – unpoisoned" Matthew Bell, the reporter for the Independent, commented that Duncan "appeared to have a sense of humour failure."

I have removed the above from the article. It's presented wholly inappropriately: clearly it was not a threat. It was a comment made in the context of a television comedy show. Claiming otherwise is entirely non-neutral. It is certainly not notable enough to include in this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point- there are people that want this entire article based on a singular topic- this stupid gay marriage controversy, which has already had its say in here.69.204.225.103 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Prejean's implants

How is Prejean receiving implants at all relevant to the question of gay marriage? Why is it even mentioned in this article at all? The article doesn't mention any other contestant's breasts, enhanced or otherwise. Just because some bit of trivia makes it into a news(ish) report doesn't mean it's worthy of appearing in Misplaced Pages. John Darrow (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about gay marriage, it is about the Miss USA 2009 contest, and the fact that one of the state committee's paid for breast implants for one of the contestants right before nationals should be in here, as it is a noteworthy story dealing directly with the 2009 Miss USA contest. TharsHammar and 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I note you were the person who originally added the paragraph. You seem to have missed the point of the questions. First, the article may be about the Miss USA 2009 contest, but the section the implants paragraph was in is specifically about the gay marriage question. Second, even if the paragraph was moved elsewhere in the article, what makes Prejean's implants any more notable than any other things which were provided for other contestants by their respective state committees? Were Prejean not so much in the news for her statements, it's unlikely anyone would have done an interview regarding her implants. Surely you don't believe California was the only state that provided something special for their contestant in an attempt to raise their standing in the competition! Thus, singling out Prejean's implants seems calculated to cast a negative light on Prejean, implying e.g. that she is shallow to have implants, or that she is a hypocrite for accepting such aid but then taking a position against the expected political correctness of the pageant. As such, the paragraph's presence appears to be a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. John Darrow (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. "Alan Duncan TV appearance causes US-UK spat". politics.co.uk. April 30, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-01.
2. James, Morrison (May 1, 2009). "Embassy Row: Miss California Threat". Washington Times. Retrieved 2009-05-01.
3. Bell, Matthew (April 26, 2009). "Matthew Bell: The IoS diary". The Independent. Retrieved 2009-05-01.

• Unassessed Beauty Pageants articles
• Unknown-importance Beauty Pageants articles