Talk:Carrie Prejean

Prejean breast implant controversy

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

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

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

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

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)

Public death threat

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

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

Miss USA controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then why isn't it in there that Hilton called Carrie Prejean a "dumb bitch," or does that expose Hilton for what he is, rather than paint him as a thoughtful 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 ^Bits and^Pieces 04:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

So we quote his groundless opinion, and then the substantiation that doesn't substantiate it? -- Rico 04:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicoCorinth (talk • contribs)

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

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)

Comments left on my talk page that should have been here

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on Miss USA 09

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

leaked nude pics is it fake or real?

sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments here were later removed

Please GO BACK TO 4CHAN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks by Alan Duncan

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

Perez Hilton

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

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

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