Talk:Miss Universe/Archive 1

THIS NEEDS CITATION:

The very first Miss Universe (from Finland), the very first Miss Asia (from Taiwan), the very first Miss International (from Colombia) and the very first Miss ASEAN (from Malaysia) all married Filipinos. (This comment was left at the top of this discussion page {rather than in a new section, at the bottom: see WP:TALK) on 01:12, 1 June 2007 by an anonymous contributor using the IP address of 143.166.255.41)

Umm, I am a bit disappointed. WHY ARE THERE NO PICTURES? :) Thue | talk 18:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The list of winners seems broken. It is rendered at the bottom of the page instead of under the list of winners heading. I am currently using Mozilla 1.7.7 on Windows XP.

On my computer the list is fine in both Internet Explorer 6.0 and Mozilla Firefox 1.7.8 on Windows XP. Carioca 03:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This page should not be merged with Miss Universe Organization

The MUO article has many factual errors. OH and another thing why are some links removed while others are left on the page???? Mito 22:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Then be bold and fix the errors. Uncle G 12:19:19, 2005-07-26 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have no particular love for this subject, but this article had many redundancies. While cleaning it up:

• I removed rows from the "Title holders" table claiming that the 2006 pageant will be held in Calgary and the 2007 pageant in Taipei, and a separate paragraph giving a list of three possible cities for 2006. At the time of writing, I can find no other Web site (even those specializing in Miss Universe news) that even names the 2006 venue, though I can find a very up-to-date page that lists eight bidding cities for 2006, which leads me to think that the Wikipedia claims were invented.
• Alal22000, you added Natalie_1.jpg while I was halfway through. (My fault for taking so long.) I decided not to merge it in, because (1) that picture has no copyright info, (2) your caption claimed that Calgary will hold the 2006 pageant without any reference, and (3) more than one picture of the same title holder is probably excessive anyway. You could probably fix (1) and (2), but a picture of something more interesting (the finalists? the judges? the effect of the pageant on the host city?) would be nice.
• One sentence: "The most popular national pageants are Miss USA, Femina Miss India, Miss Peru, and Miss Venezuela." Another: "Among the most important national pageants in the world are the Miss India, Miss Philippines, Miss USA, Miss Colombia, Miss Peru, Miss Puerto Rico, and Miss Venezuela Universe contests, all of which command consistently high interest and television ratings in their respective countries." Well, which is it? I've gone for the second because it's part of a more informative paragraph, but I'm not happy about doing so without a reference.
• I found this sentence, which I think is the worst sentence I've ever seen in Wikipedia: "The Miss Universe pageant, as already mentioned, is held annually in May or June and requires months of preparation before the actual pageant is actually held in either the USA or outside the USA." Wrong on so many levels.

-- Mpt 20:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

NO EVIDENCE

"Lara Dutta of India is one of the few Miss Universes of recent history to win by unanimous vote, while Wendy Fitzwilliam of Trinidad and Tobago and Denise Quiñones of Puerto Rico won with a deadlocked jury."

who is the source of this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.142.163 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-28 00:00 (UTC)

the information were fed to the media through interviews of the judges, you can search for them and indeed, a (female?) judge said that lara dutta was the unanimous choice, while a judge in 1998 said that there was a deadlocked jury when they chose the winner. this also happened in 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinte Eye (talk • contribs) 2006-01-01 03:32 (UTC)

You have to be more specific with your sources. You cant just say a judge. A lot of information is fabricated. There are several inaccurate pageant articles here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.142.103 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-07 10:58 (UTC)

Yearly Information

i remember right after the 2005 pageant, when the top five's names were posted in the miss universe main article. there were also several information related specifically to that edition which were incorporated into the main article. so as to avoid the future inconvenience of cleaning this up and once more adding specific information and facts related to an upcoming edition, i suggest to just devote an entire new article for every addition--the winners list, the host city, trivia, etc.--then just link this with this site through the year's text. in that way, we can avoid any misinformation that may just apply to a specific edition, not the pageant as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinte Eye (talk • contribs) 2005-01-03 05:09 (UTC)

national titles

why is there a need to add a national title column on the titleholders' table? the reason why these winners were able to compete in the competition in the first place is that they earned the titles, besides, this is a page on miss universe, not their national titles. one might just include these national titles as part of each winner's personal pages.

The national title column is there mainly for the link. Linking to the country as a whole doesn't really give relevent into. But, the pageant link has relevant information. Also, the title (and organization) is not always guarenteed to be in the form "Miss Country". --Rob 07:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So what about just linking the national titles link to the country names, similar to the ones used in the Miss USA winners page? When they win, they no longer use the title "Miss Country" or any other national ones, but "Miss Universe". And in actuality, for such winners, they become associated with the country they represented, not necessarily with the organization (e.g. Miss Universe Natalie Glebova of Canada [or from Russia], not Natalie Glebova, Miss Universe Canada). A perfect example of this is the policy of handing over to the 1st runner up the national title whenever the Miss USA wins Miss Universe. National title is only of relevance when the representative doesn't win a "higher" or more prestigious title.

Oxana Fedorova won MISS RUSSIA, not KRASA ROSSI, which is the "Beauty of Russia" title affiliated with the Miss World competition.

Anne Marie Pohtamo won MISS FINLAND title in 1975. Se has never been on Suomen Neito. Those are different competitions! (if you don't believe it read her book!!) Armi Kuusela had never been on Miss Finland (Eva Hellas won Miss Finland 1952 competition) competition but she's Suomen Neito 1952.

Related Miss USA discussion about listing winners

At Talk:Miss USA it's being discussed if it was good to put winners in a separate article, or if they should be merged back into the main article. I thought editors of this article, would be interested in that discussion, as similiar issues apply to this article. --Rob 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is worth considering. Although only one row is added per year, in the case of such an old pageant like the Ms. Universe (50+ editions already), it will actually make the main article quite long and boring, might as well transfer the winners list to a link in case viewers are interested. This may also be applied to the Miss World article.

National pageants section

This is one section essential to the Miss Universe article that I just realized as glaringly lacking. The article talks about the selection of contestants to represent countries. So why not include a listing of all the national pageants that are affiliated with the organization as a section? Then again, when some editors are already expressing their reservation with respect to the length of the winners list, this should be made into a new article. It is in such a section/article where I think the "National title" column from the winners list should be made available (i.e. the new section/article could be a table with a column for the country, a column for the national pageant, and a column for the Miss Universe winners it has produced). Note that the national pageant may vary within a nation across years. The removal of the "National title" from the winners column is consistent with my opinion before that such is inappropriate for the section featuring winners--the Miss Universe winner is affiliated with the country, not necessarily with the national pageant, this despite the fact that her ticket to the Miss Universe pageant was through winning the national pageant. Besides, the winners list here is the most peculiar online, for it is the only one that features such a column. Joey80 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Electronic voting in Statistics section

Can someone explain why this is part of the Statistics section? It is more a part of the pageant's history/selection process, so how about moving it there? Moreover, the results included here is somewhat truncated from the Electronic voting topic (i.e. when electronic systems was first used in the Olympics, they just mentioned it in the history that it was in this edition that this was introduced, they didn't get carried away by listing down the results). It might as well be moved to a new article referring to the specific edition of the pageant. Joey80 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Define "important"

Among the most important national pageants in the world ... which command consistently high interest and television ratings in their respective countries How does high interest and high ratings translate into "important"? --Eddylyons 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, from the marketing point of view, pageants are events. Hence, for those national pageants which generate lots of interests, especially those of Latin American, then the events not just attract viewers, but money from sponsors and the attention of the media. Note that the system is arranged in such a way that the body in charge of organizing the national pageant pays for the right to hold it (and hence, find a representative for the state) to the international pageant (e.g. Miss Universe Organization). Hence, continued interest in the national pageant means a steady stream of cash to the international pageant, as well as the transplantation of the national interest to the international pageant. Note that "important" is not really similar to "prestigious". In the latter, the title is gained by the performance of the national representatives in the international scene, in addition to the intense competition associated with it locally (e.g. Miss Venezuela and Miss Puerto Rico).

Still, I question as to how this qualifies it as "important". It sounds like POV to me. Eddylyons 00:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1952 winners

The German wikipedia has a list of winners before 1952, when it was a pageant in Galveston, TX.

That is not the same as this contest (refer to the official website). It might have just been a case of two different contests having the same name. --Joey80 09:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Time Winners section

is this really necessary when we already have the map? besides, the section title states "MOST time winners", so why does it need to include in the table all the countries which won the title? either we cut the table (like the winners list), or we change the title. also, it seems that editors are crediting russia and panama in these lists (and the map) which means we have more winners than editions. please understand the russia is placed in the winners list to reflect the fact that she was crowned, but she was dethroned. in keeping with the official list (from the official website), that win is discounted, hence, to be faithful to that, any reference to russia in the statistics and map should be removed, or at least be kept in the footnote. --Joey80 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need the table, personally. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the table. It's much easier to read than the map. -- Lancini87 00:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Selections

"Despite the "casted" Australian delegate, Jennifer Hawkins, being chosen as Miss Universe in 2004, Australia resumed its national pageant to choose Michelle Guy as Miss Universe Australia 2005." - I think Australia's 2006 delegate, Erin McNaught, was again casted through an agency. - Matthew238 05:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

The features and content of this page are getting out of hand. Locations of all the editions were placed in the Trivia, well, it's not really a trivia, but part of history (and this could just be linked to the winners list), then there is also the statistics by geographic region, to add to other statistics like by country, etc. I think that an overhaul of this article is needed, paying close attention to repeated facts, as well as the Trivia section going too far that "Trivia" is no longer the appropriate word. --Joey80 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this article has shown significant improvement in the last few weeks. But there are still repetitive information that needs to be removed. For example, there is already a table showing the number of wins by state, there is also a map showing this, and in the Trivia section, there is also a bullet point entry telling which state was the most successful in terms of number of wins.

Since the titleholders table is too long, we decided to move the entire list and retain just a portion of it in this page. I think this should also be done with the table showing the hosts, color commentators, etc. Oh by the way, found another repetitive info: it was already stated in the main article that Manila, Bangkok and Panama City have hosted the pageant twice, and this is again indicated in the trivia. Joey80 06:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section?

I know that I have complained about this article having too many sections and recently having too much information, even unnecessary ones being included (probably due to the recently concluded edition). Well, maybe these sections, since each is quite long, could be put in separate articles (like the one done to the winners list, and similar to the 2006 World Cup article). In such a case, I am also proposing that we add a criticism section, provided that information contained here have references. Some examples of criticisms: Miss Photogenic is decided based on popular vote (I think we don't have any issue there), judges coming from American and Latin American background (hence, recent winners, and even most finalists, mostly come from these regions), etc. For the latter criticism, personally, I can't blame the management since their market is the Western Hemisphere, in as much as the market of Miss World is Europe. I even read several articles claiming that ever since Donald Trump took over, there has been more and more emphasis on beauty, while sacrificing personality, intelligence and other factors, even quoting him somewhere along the line that people watch the pageant because they want to see beauty win. Such was said to be the reason that the interview section (which was scored up to the late 1990s) was removed, since those who are not beautiful can end up as finalists. In fact, there were even reports for the 2006 edition that five or the Top 20 finalists were personally handpicked by Trump. In any case, if such a section be included, constant editing and watching are recommended to prevent the section going overboard, similar to the main Miss Universe article. --Joey80 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it notable that the greatest number of wins comes from the U.S. and Peurto Rico. It is an American company, and the judges tend to be American - when you have 50 names being read out, you are probably going to specialy notice when they say "USA". But there may not be bias - most great distance runners come from Kenya, winning Gymnasts from Russia; we wouldn't say that this was bias - maybe Americans are better contestants, with their society maybe paying more attention to the 'sport', and thus producing better competitors - maybe; but you can't help but think there is a bias. - Matthew238 01:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup of Beauty claim

Is this really a legitimate comparison? Although such was said by the host in the 2006 pageant, I think that was more of an allusion to a recent event, rather than a byname to the event, after all, it takes place annually. Such an allusion was also used in the 2001 pageant in Puerto Rico, when the host said it was the Olympics of Beauty, again, in reference to the 2000 Olympics. Joey80 13:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tallest, Oldest Miss Universe Winners

The shortest Miss Universe (in terms of height) and the youngest winner are both indicated in the trivia section. What about their respective opposites? Who was the tallest Miss Universe ever? Who was the oldest at the time of her crowning? For the former, I think the honor belongs to Amelia Vega (6'1). Taller candidates are a recent trend and, going back to the winners of the last few years where the heights of the candidates are more accessible to the public, she is definitely one of the tallest in recent memory. As for winners that may even exceed the 6'0 stature, I don't think that was broken in the editions going back 10, 20 or even 30 years before, when the height of 5'7 or 5'8 is already considered tall and sufficient to earn a crown (note: the shortest Miss Universe, at 5'4 won in 1988). As for the oldest at the time of her crowning, that will require a more extensive research. We have the relevant dates for when each of the edition took place, although the birth year (or even the birthday) of some winners are lacking or even uncertain. I am thinking of making another table (of course, with only the more recent editions partially included in the main article, a la the winners list) of the data, place (as in the theater/venue name) and host city/state of each edition. Joey80 06:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

the shortest Miss universe is Apsara honskun (sp?). She won in 1965. You have the wrong Miss thiland

Anyway, whatever. The shortest Miss Universe trivia is already placed in the article. The point of this section is to include the opposite spectrum of such categories. Joey80 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

National Costume winners

Hi! Since the outfits of National Costume winners appeal to the senses (especially visually), don't you think it is a good idea for the picture of each edition's winner be included in the edition's article? Thanks. Joey80 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Contestants

Who classifies as a black contestant? Chelsi had been included but Zuleyka was left out. both are multiracial with Black Ancestors. When do we drawn the line? the wikipedia entry for "black" states the three folllowing criteria ancestry, self-identity, and appearance.

here is a pic of Zuleyka Grandparents http://www.endi.com/XStatic/endi/images/espanol/zullyabu6.jpg

Should Chelsi and Zuleyka be included as Black Contestants or at least as contestants having black ancestry?

National titles

It was a good idea to give the national title for each Miss Universe, but I suggest to remove it because it is not accurate at all.

Indeed, old titles in the 50's or 60's were not always the same as those awarded today. I am not sure that Miss Greece in the 60's was already Star Hellas, I don't think the word "Universe" was included in Miss Japan's title, I know Miss España used to be "Señorita España"...

Furthermore, Colombia's own Luz Marina Zuluaga (Miss Universe 1958) never won the "Señorita Colombia" title, many use to say that she was the first runner-up, but in several occasions, Ms. Zuluaga has said herself that it is a mistake since at that time such placements were not announced.

France's own Christiane Martel was not awarded neither the same Miss France title we know these days.

For that reason I suggest that we should create a new section featuring the current national titles of the delagates competing at the Miss Universe pageant. And erase therefore the national title from the winners' list since there are too many mistakes.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Miss_Universe_winners"

Trivia queries

Someone kept emphasizing that Puerto Rico has Commonwealth status in the location section of the trivia. While this is true, note that the context of this article is not political, but as an event. Hence, Puerto Rico competes on equal terms with the United States. And the fact that it competes as a separate entity means that state/country/territory-wise, it is separate from USA (again, in the context of this event), hence, the first pageant to be held outside the United States is in 1972 (in Puerto Rico).

In any case, I also removed the trivia entry listing down the number of titles won by countries, since this is repetitive. This is already displayed Winning years for each country section and in a better presentation (i.e. in table form, which is easier to browse through, instead of text).

Also, there are some trivia entries that are truncated:

• The USA is followed by Venezuela (33), Sweden and Brazil (both 28), Colombia (27), Germany (21), Israel (20), England (19), Finland, Greece and India (all 18), Norway(17), Peru, South Africa, Canada, Japan, and Puerto Rico (16 each). Of these countries, only England has yet to win the contest.
  • This point couldn't stand alone. Do you understand what this entry is implying? Anyway, this is connected to a previous entry, so either combine them, or complete the idea being implied here.
• The United States has been the most successful state to compete in Miss Universe in the 1950s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In the 1960s, Finland was the most successful nation, and Venezuela has been most successful in the 2000s., this is followed by another entry, The most successful state in the past twenty years has been Venezuela, which placed continually for 21 years, from 1983 to 2003, nearly beating the United States' 22-year streak between 1977-1998. While Alicia Machado has been the only Venezuelan Miss Universe in the last decade, of the nine following pageants, four have seen Venezuela's representative place first runner-up (1997, 1998, 2000, and 2003).
  • The first point indicates that USA is the most successful in 1990s, while Venezuela in 2000s. But the second says that Venezuela is the most successful in the last two decades. At least, in the second point, the basis of such a statement is included. In the first entry, this is not clear (albeit a source is cited).
• Colombia had three first-runner up placements from 1992-1994, a streak that has been unparallelled in competition history. The only country to have done better is Venezuela, which won in 1996 and placed first runner-up in 1997 and 1998.
  • Wrong sentence construction! Colombia's feat is unparalleled. But how come Venezuela bettered it? In any case, this entry might be saying that with the exception of Venezuela's feat in 1996-98, Colombia's three-year streak is the best. But the first statement seems to state this absolutely, instead of relatively, sweeping away all other arguments (note: it states unparalleled in competition history, although this statement is qualified with the only country to have done better in the following sentence, the first statement still outweighs the second, making for an awkward statement).
• Finland has had the most consecutive runners-up. For five years, from 1965 to 1969, its delegates placed among the five finalists without interruption (1965: Virpi Miettinen, first runner-up, 1966: Satu Ostring, first runner-up, 1967: Ritva Lehto, third runner-up, 1968: Leena Brusiin, second runner-up, and 1969: Harrieti Eriksson, first runner-up).
  • The first part of the second sentence is redundant. The first statement says that Finland has consecutive runner-up finishes, the second then puts this in a timeframe, but again emphasizing that it is without interruption. Duh! Because it is consecutive..., no need to include without interruption there.

Joey80 14:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fontana, California?

I just corrected a bit of subtle vandalism, but I'm surprised that nobody else caught it. Since 5 August 2006, the article has said that the first contest was in Fontana, California, instead of the correct city, Long Beach, California [1]. ^BlankVerse 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia, 2002

I was reseaching what happened to the Russian entry in 2002. From what I read, Oxana Fedorova indicates that she resigned because due to time constraints which kept her from continuing her reign. Considering the controversy, wouldn't it be more fair to list that there is some dispute about what happened? Minimia 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

Per User:SeK612's edit summary, I am going to remove this section from the article. The info on Fedorova can be found 3 other times in the article. Conner wasn't disqualified and Rees was Miss Nevada USA, so no real need for this to be here. There are other more appropriate places for this, such as Tara Conner, Katie Rees and Miss USA. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its official Barbados has turned down Miss Universe for 2008. It wont be a 2008 venue.

The Barbados Tourism Authority (BTA) has come forward and said they have rejected a bid to host the Miss Universe in Barbados for 2008 saying the pagents costs proved too prohibitive. Anyone know other places that have been proposed for 2008? -- Article: Barbados declines hosting Miss Universe 2008 - Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 Barbados Advocate newspaper CaribDigita 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 Colombia an Brazil want to host....