Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 12 May 2009 (→Undue weight threatens to make Carrie Prejean and controversy -- and all that is negative about this living person -- one and the same). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Beauty Pageants Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Carrie Prejean. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Carrie Prejean at the Reference desk.

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 and 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."

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 carrots 03:16, 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 , 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)

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 Misplaced Pages! -- 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 and 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 and 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 peron? -- 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 and 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 and 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 and 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.

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)?
Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. I shall say no more here, the price of retaliation on wiki is too high. Caden 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 for the Miley Cyrus stuff. TharsHammar and 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 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 08:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to my other admin posts, I'd like to remind everyone that Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 carrots 01:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please redact that inappropriate comment about a living person. TharsHammar and 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 and 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually did some digging around, and according to FoxNews 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 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 and 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 carrots 01:26, 12 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, and in the Carrie Prejean section of the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 and 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 and 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 and 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. "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 carrots 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I already redacted it. Or do you also have a problem with "beauty queen"? Baseball Bugs 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 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 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, 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 and 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 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 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: Baseball Bugs 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 . Yes, WND is far out fringe and should not be represented as anything main-stream. TharsHammar and 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 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 carrots 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WND is not a reliable source. AniMate 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 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. As more info about her comes out, I think you're going to see more of this kind of criticism popping up. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:43, 12 May 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 ] -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:19, 12 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 Misplaced Pages'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, ...

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

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.

Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages 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!

Misplaced Pages 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 and 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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. No word on whether the devil was tempting her when she posed topless. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:57, 12 May 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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/miss-californias-breast-i_n_194385.html

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Beauty Pageants articles
• Low-importance Beauty Pageants articles
• Start-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles