Talk:Carrie Prejean

citation for 2005 Miss California Teen pageant

I found a citation for Prejean having competed and come in as runner-up in the 2005 Miss California Teen in 2005:

I understand why you need to protect the page; however, I thought you'd appreciate the citation. Miss Ivonne (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this does not meet our standards as a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TFTJ, my website & the photographer's website also confirm it, but again I doubt any of those (especially my site!) could be considered "reliable". I'll look for something else.PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing this article might mention it beyond the abstract but as it's subscription only we'll never know. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Miss Ivonne (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hilton quote

Someone just deleted the Perez Hilton quote calling Carrie Prejean a "dumb bitch", citing concerns over WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

• Per WP:BLP: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides

It is hard to claim that the Hilton statement is not key to the subject's notability; it was key in turning her from just another non-winner of a pagaent into a cause celebre.

• The use of the quote does not appear to take sides; it is clearly attributed to one of the players in the incident, and can be seen at least as much as reflecting negatively on Hilton as on Prejean.

I will be restoring the quote, and adding a second source to firm up the reliability (not that there's anything wrong with ABC News as a source, but both times they run the quote, the censor it, as either "dumb b----" or "dumb b**ch". --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Sounds correct to me. WP is not censored, and this is a key reason she is notable.--Milowent (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it. I don't think the information content is materially lessened if we don't fully quote him. It's a matter of degree. Hilton said many things about Prejean but we don't have to include the actual words to capture the event. This is a BLP after all.Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the information content is materially lessened if we censor this, the heart of his statement and the heart of what he was being criticized for - criticism that receives substantial coverage here. To expend effort describing what was said when what was said is much clearer representation seems pointless. By merely describing it as a "derogatory term" does not make it clear in what ways or on what levels it was derogatory;under that, he could have just been making fun of her name, rather than insulting her intelligence and invoking a term that many would consider sexist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the section in the article. There's nothing in there about Hilton's sexism or reactions to his comments on her intelligence. Most of the commentary / writing is around the politics of same-sex marriage and comments from selected stakeholders about the topic of Prejean's point of view on the subject. I suppose a few readers could misinterpret "derogatory name" to mean Hilton was making fun of her name, so we could substitute "derogatory term" to be more precise. But in the end, I'm not quite seeing the value to the article based on notability. I'd argue it's more relevant (if at all) to Hilton's article since it says more about his hostility to women than Prejean.Mattnad (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the reaction to the comments needs context to make sense - reacting to specificity and harshness of what was said. If we were saying that Perez's comments were accurate, or if we were calling her that ourselves and sourcing it to Perez's rant, then we'd have a BLP concerns... but we aren't. Far from it, we're showing that that descriptor of her got condemnation. As such, I'm missing what purpose being vague over being precise has. As for notability, googling "Perez Hilton" and "Dumb bitch" gets over 13000 google hits, including news sources in the US, UK, Australia; searching "Perez Hilton", "dumb", and "Prejean" (to find sites that might have used an edited version of the second word) gets close to 200,000. It seems to have been noted. -Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthy of inclusion at all, per WP:IINFO. So what if an openly gay gossip blogger, who likes to doodle the word "HO" on women's photos, said she was a dumb b___h? Later, he said he was thinking the c word. Should we put his error in the article? -- Rico 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If we eliminate the participation of Hilton, we'd have to eliminate most of the article, as Prejean's fame beyond yet-another-state-pagaent-winner lies in the interactions with Hilton and the public reactions thereto. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you step back from the details and read the article as it is without the direct quote, can a reader understand what's going on? Also, I do think we should restore his opinion of her answer removed by RicoCorinth since that's directly relevant to a key part of the controversy and does not cross the line for a BLP IMHO. We do need to capture Hitlon's reaction since he was part of the circus but we don't need to directly quote everything he said to do it. So in the spirit of compromise, I'd like to restore his subsequent comment about the quality of her answer without the "d**b b***h" words. Thoughts?Mattnad (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So you think that we should include his opinion of the answer but not the quote, but in a spirit of compromise, you're willing to settle for... including the opinion of the answer but not the quote. Forgive me if that doesn't seem like much of a compromise. The deleting of the opinion on the answer is an issue that should be raised - it was made without recent discussion, and in current discussion the only stance I see is against the deleting - but it is a separate issue. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that compromise. Just to be clear, as Obama is always saying, I suggested this compromise almost a year ago, but the other editors, who working the article then, believed that every single word of Hilton's mind had to be put in the article and especially the "d**b b***h" words. It is good that we have been able to work this out, but it would have been better if pervious editors would have more willing to work together cooperatively.--InaMaka (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose suggested compromise. Hilton's words and Prejean's answer to the marriage question are the only reason Prejean has an article today. Blanking out some letters provides no aid to Ms. Prejean and is a silly precedent to set.--Milowent (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose suggested "compromise". The quote conveys the vitriolicness of the statement, creating an appropriate context. Removing the quote does lend any more clarity and precision, does not even save article space, and given that the quote is reliably sourced and relevant, there is no real WP:BLP concern. This looks like a clear case of WP:CENSOR. (And before it's treated like this is what I'm responding to, no, I don't assume that you were actually wanting "d**b b***h" in there, but rather wanted the current vague descriptor instead of the words that "d**b b***h" is to represent. That's the "compromise" I'm objecting to... but if I'm wrong and what you want is actually "d**b b***h", then I object to that on WP:CENSOR grounds as well.) -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose sanitizing of quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArglebargleIV (talk • contribs) 08:18, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Vote, "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." -- Rico 17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I just used the bolded language to help convey my opinions.--Milowent (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, because per What Wikipedia is not policy, "Wikipedia is not a democracy," "and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper." -- Rico 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with Milowent. --GRuban (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers -- Rico 18:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What numbers? Just dropping blue links isn't going to convince anyone (or at least not me!), especially since it seems to be just another reference to what you just wrote above - I did read it, honest. Milowent was convincing, and you weren't. --GRuban (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rico, since you always raised your issues on Jimbo's page, don't automatically think everyone is opposed to you. I just don't think deleting the words "dumb bitch" protects Ms. Prejean. In fact, I think its important to know how she was treated by Perez.--Milowent (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support (not that this is a vote of course) - As one of the editors who's in favor of some nuance here, I take the position that we don't need those exact words to convey an understanding of Prejean. I'm OK with the full Hilton quote in articles dedicated to the controversy, and even him. It's a judgment call, no doubt, but I'm for keeping the d**b b***h words out of this article. I'll also point out that some mainstream media outlets censored the quote. So while Wikipedia is not censored in general, BLPs have exceptions: Back the WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment". I think we are all trying to figure out the balancing point between needed vs. sensational information about Prejean who is more than Hilton's comments. Mattnad (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies as making "titillating claims", as I don't think anyone would take Hilton's quote as meaning she was literally a mute canine. It is instead rather transparently a harsh form of derogation, a personal character judgment as it were, not like quoting someone claiming that someone was having an affair or planned to eat Eleanor Roosevelt's corpse or somesuch. This conflict is key to her being who see is, to the degree that she's a person of more note than, say, Raquel Beezley. Now if you want to argue that the controversy should not be a separate article, and should be merged into this one, I'd think that's something worth considering. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the sensationalism comes from repeating the quote (because of the blatant lack of decorum), not confusion about his meaning, but we know my views. Let's see what other editors say.Mattnad (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of the quote. AniMate 20:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Added note: Prejean herself choses to repeat the quote, uncensored, on page 79 of her book. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a surprise, but I think Wikipedia is different than a book, no matter who the author is. Mattnad (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of the quote. I just want to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy and therefore just because sheer numbers of people want to put something in an article does not make is appropriate and it does not over-ride BLP issues. Also, I think is a false analogy to compare a Wikipedia article to a Prejean's book. Prejean's book is 259 pages long which provides Prejean's view of the situation and places the quote in a huge amount of context. There is little or no context to quoting Hilton here. This article repeats several things that Hilton stated. Why the obsession with the phrase "db"? I think the essence of Hilton's hate speech can pointed out without a direct quote. Once again, BLP concerns do not end just because one side out numbers the other side. Quoting Hilton in this Wikipedia article would clearly violate BLP. This is not a one time situation. There are attempts to violate BLP all the time by a large group of editors that feel the need to place harmful material in the article just because it happened. It is not necessary. For example, in the Mel Gibson there were tons of editors (the majority of editors) that wanted to place Gibson's mugshot in the article. It was eventually decided that the mugshot was not necessary because the average Wikipedia reader is smart enough to know that since Gibson was arrested then there was a mugshot but it was necessary for to convey the essence of Gibson's arrest. Also, in the Alec Baldwin, at first, there was a rush to jam every single word of Baldwin's angry rant at his daughter. There was a majority of editors that argued that there had to be a detailed account of what exactly Baldwin stated so that the Wikipedia reader knew what the essence of the scandal was about. Eventually editors came to the conclusion that just a mention of the phone call without any quote was enough to satisfy the Wikipedia article. This is the same situation. There is an air sensationalism in the argument that we have to quote Hilton directly. Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid and Wikipedia should not act like one. And finally votes do not settle anything.--InaMaka (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a violation of BLP, as it is both well-sourced and quite relevant to her notability. But if you're gong to be concerned about BLP, please edits your comments about Hilton and claims about "hate speech" unless you can reliably source it as such. (And the accusations that this is being done to smear Prejean is rather odd given the Baldwin example; do you think that was being included to smear Baldwin's kid?) -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear NatGertler: Just because something is reliably sourced has nothing to do with whether something violates BLP or not. Just because something was said does NOT mean that it should or should not be in the article. There has NEVER been an issue about whether Hilton made the hate-filled comments. That is a red herring on your part. We know all too well what Hilton said. It is quoted over and over again on every trash tabloid website on the Internet and on his own webpage he always refers to her as "that db" Carrie Prejean. If you review his website you will see that he repeats the hate speech forty or fifty times (may be more). He makes a point to use the phrase on his website in each and every article that he refers to her in. He clearly hates the woman. He clearly did not engage in a onetime slip of the tongue. He has dedicated a whole chapter of his new book to Prejean and he calls her a "DB" over and over again in that chapter. Clearly, Hilton's numerous references to "the db Prejean" make it clear that he is attempting to smear her. If someone wants to know what Hilton calls her they can go to this website to find that information? It is not hidden. He states it over and over again. However, Wikipedia is not a tabloid and we do not repeat every single little bit of trash that we hear. It is not a question of whether it happened. Wikipedia is not a tabloid so we don't repeat everything. Also, Wikipedia has in place rules to protect living people which obviously Prejean is. The phrase does not add anything to the article. The article clearly gets the point across that Hilton found Prejean's answer to be horrible. Why do we need to know Hilton's opinion about her personally other than to sensationalize the article?--InaMaka (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No I will not back down on calling Hilton's comments hate speech because that it what it is. A discussion of Hilton hate speech is relevant to this discussion and I will continue to use the term. I do not have to provide you or anyone else a reliable source to express my opinion. The speech was filled with hatred of Prejean and that is the direct reason that it should not be repeated by you and the other editors for your sensationalist reasons. It just seems clear that supporters of the quote merely want the quote in there so that the very first thing that comes up on a Google search is a repetition of Hilton's hate-filled speech. It is not necessary to repeat it and it only works to make Wikipedia look like just another tabloid besides violating BLP, NPOV, and making the article a coatrack to repeat ALL of Hilton's hate-filled comments. There is enough in the article right now to make the point that Hilton believed Prejean's answer was not a good answer. What point does your desire to fully quote the hate speech make? Why is it required in the article? Prejean was crowned Miss California and that is reason enough to have an article about her. Hilton's hate speech does not make her a notable figure. What point does the repetition of Hilton's hate speech serve? How does the repetition of the quote make the article better? Why is it required? Why is it necessary? You have not answered that basic point. Just because something was said does not mean that it has to be in the article. It is unnecessary, inflamatory, sensational, wrong. If we as editors sucessfully get the point across that Hilton believed that Prejean's answer to be not only wrong, but stupid, what point is there in repeating the phrase "DB" other than that it repeats Hilton's insult and is sensationalistic tabloid fodder. Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid.----InaMaka (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"[H]e called her a 'dumb bitch' and drew a dick shooting cum on her face. [...] why hasn't anybody thought to call him on his [...] misogyny?" -- Anna North, Why Does Perez Hilton Get A Pass On Misogyny?, Jezebel, Jun 23, 2009.

Misogyny: a hatred of women. -- Merriam-Webster -- Rico 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Good job Rico. Caden ^cool 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Robert Siciliano, a cyber crime expert, says Hilton’s sexist rant is feeding into a growing problem online—hateful, sexist, racist rants.

[...]

Hilton, a judge for Miss USA, lashed out on his website, calling Prejean the “B” word after she told him during the Miss USA pageant she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Since then, he’s taken the name calling to another level, saying in a TV interview, he really wanted to call Prejean the “C” word.

[...] Siciliano says it's a warning people like Hilton should heed before they use hateful words online." -- Carol Costello, Online hate speech, CNN, April 22, 2009. -- Rico 19:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of the quote per InaMaka. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and editors must remember that BLP applies to this article on Miss Prejean. Hilton's hate speech has no business here. Wikipedia is NOT to be used by some liberal editors as a platform, or coatrack, or even as an attack page to promote a left-wing cause. Caden ^cool 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • BLP applies to Perez Hilton as well, would you care to refactor your comment above? Also, please discuss the article, not the editors (remember [[WP:AGF}}). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? No sir I will not. Are you telling me that, "DUMB BITCH" or "CUNT", is the speech of love?? Where I come from that's called hate speech. Furthermore, I am discussing the article. If you check the history of both this talk page and that of Miss Prejean's article, you will see the evidence that many editors here have been using the article as a coatrack/attack page to promote an agenda. Yes, the truth hurts. But it is what it is! Caden ^cool 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Good response, Caden. The supporters of the full quote want us to stop using the term "hate speech", but amazingly they think it is ok to repeat "db" in the article five times.--InaMaka (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, including its Wikipedia is not a democracy section.
  Support the Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion guideline.
  Support Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. -- Rico 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• • So you support policy. That's good. The disagreement here is not whether policy is a good thing or not, but how policy applies to this article, and how policy should be interpreted. Endlessly repeating policy links doesn't advance the discussion any. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Jeebus on the drama, you drama-lovers. Who cares if we call it hate speech, an epithet, or a pet name? If we call it "hate speech," then wikipedia is filled with speech which fits that definition. See, e.g., Parents Music Resource Center, where rap lyrics are quoted which called Tipper Gore a "dumb bitch," complete with explanation that "Tipper Gore is the only woman I ever directly called a bitch on any of my records." We are not children on Wikipedia and we do not censor. Hilton's "dumb bitch" quote reflects poorly primarily on him, and the gravity of the shitstorm which was caused is best conveyed if we don't censor it. I understand we have an honest debate going on here about article content, and people I think can reasonably disagree without being evil.--Milowent (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP nightmare

This article is a disaster and I think regular editors of it need to think long and hard before the reintroduce the material I've removed. An entire section on one odd interview with Larry King? Insinuations that she could have been prosecuted for distributing child pornography when she wasn't underage? From WP:BLP:

The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This article focused heavily on every negative aspect of Prejean's time in the spotlight with almost no light on the positives. I'm certainly not censoring the negatives. They happened. But we have to write about them in a respectful way, without putting to much undue weight on what became a major news story on a slow news day. She's a person of marginal notability, and we cannot use this article as a platform to disparage her because of her beliefs. AniMate 20:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I spent a lot of time defending this article in the fall, and even got it semi-protected at one point. Looks like it substantialy worsened at some point after that. I'm not sure what positives we can source on Carrie, but stuff like the Larry King interview got out of hand (though a small passing reference to it might be possible i suppose).--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A sentence at most is needed for Larry King, and I too spent some time here in the fall and probably should have stayed. By positives I mean things similar to what is covered in the "Events" subsection of the article. We had an entire section about one bad interview ending in a quote from someone she has publicly feuded with, and only one sentence about presenting a major national gospel music award. The balance was really off, and hopefully I've done some good with the article. AniMate 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The child pornography thing should have never been there -- and I agree that the article did deteriorate considerably after most people stopped paying attention to it. Calling it a "BLP nightmare" is over the top, though. I applaud AniMate for his revisions what appears upon first reading to be a much more balanced and informative article. While I still think Hilton's quote should be present, I can live with this version. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article implied she could have been a child pornographer, Donald Trump jokingly said she should be porn star, and the article ended with "The public is finally getting a glimpse of the real Carrie Prejean who lives in her own delusional world," he said. "The childish behavior, her negative attitude, the sarcasm and condescending tone, the disrespect and continual lying she is demonstrating now is only a fraction of what we endured during her reign and after." It was really, really bad. AniMate 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new lead

"Carrie Prejean is a person who did some things, and won something." It would fit in better with the campaign to keep this article as vague as possible. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very good. Let's see, let's go back to the old version which was quite well written: "Prejean was called a "db" by Hilton who thinks Prejean is a "db". Hilton thinks her opinion on same sex marriage is stupid and it indicates to Hilton that Prejean is a "db" who is the worst pagaent contestant in the history of world according to Hilton. And did we mention that Hilton thinks Prejean is a "db". Now, just to be sure that no one reading this article misses the point Hilton called Prejean a "db", but according to Hilton's BLOG and YOUTUBE video he really wanted to call a Prejean a "c". Also, there are other folks that saw Prejean on TV and believed her answer to be stupid and it proves that she is just a "db". Now, the "db" was sued by the Miss Calif org and the leaders of that org believe that Prejean is a "db" and they want her breasts back. Now, did you hear that? You stupid Wikipedia reader. Miss Calif org wants Prejean to remove her fake boobs and send them back to the Miss Calif org so that that next year's Miss Calif can compete for Miss USA with the same pair of boobs. The Miss Calif org officials also stated that they do not believe Prejean to be a "db" but they do believe that she is mean, catty and stole Miss Calif org's boobs. Also, Prejean made a a SEX TAPE and there are porn sellers who want to sell the SEX TAPE. Did you hear that dear Wikipedia reader, SEX TAPE? Also, there is a rumour out there that Prejean's mom is a lesbian. Now, make sure that you hear that we said LESBIAN, yeah, really. Also, there is an obscure law professor who teaches at an obscure law school who thinks that Prejean should go to jail for being a child pornographer. Really. Now, if you don't believe any of this and you try to remove this FACTS from the article we are going scream CENSORSHIP." After reading your insightful, but short comment above, I think the current version of the article should be removed and the old version should be inserted AND I think that wonderful version should be nominated for "Featured Article".--InaMaka (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points InaMaka! You sure got that as accurate as possible. It's bizarre to me to read Nat Gertler's post, since I find it to be quite hypocritical of him. The only "campaign" I see, is the one he is leading along with the many others who share his liberal POV. I call it as I see it. The evidence speaks for itself. Caden ^cool 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was just working on that, jokes aside. Some of the recent edits I see are disagreement over what should be in the lead of the article. But I think the lead is arguably too long. It currently reads:

Caroline Michelle "Carrie" Prejean (pronounced /preɪˈʒɑːn/; born May 13, 1987)[1] is an American model, author and former Miss California USA 2009, and Miss USA 2009 first runner-up. She received nationwide attention over her answer to a question about same-sex marriage. Prejean was dethroned on June 10, 2009, for what the Miss California USA organization alleges was "continued breach of contract."[2] Prejean called those claims false, and filed a libel suit in which she alleged that she had been discriminated against because of her religious views.[3] Pageant officials countersued, and demanded that Prejean reimburse pageant officials for a personal loan.[4] Prejean and the pageant officials settled out of court on November 3, 2009.[5]

Prejean has appeared as a model for Target, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bloomingdale's, and Nordstrom. She has also appeared in Bliss magazine, as a model for E!: Entertainment Television, at the 81st Academy Awards, and in an interactive model search competition for the NBC game show Deal or No Deal. Prejean also works as an ambassador for the San Diego Padres as a member of the Pad Squad from 2006 to present.[6]

I think a better lead would read:

Caroline Michelle "Carrie" Prejean (pronounced /preɪˈʒɑːn/; born May 13, 1987)[1] is an American model, author and former Miss California USA 2009, and Miss USA 2009 first runner-up. Prejean received national attention in 2009 stemming from her answer to a question about same-sex marriage in the 2009 Miss USA Pageant. Prejean was later ousted of her Miss California crown for alleged breaches of contract. Contentious litigation between Prejean and the Miss California organization was settled in November 2009. Prejean released a book in November 2009 defending her positions on the controversy.

Thoughts? Some of the contentious details can be addressed in the body of the article, but I think this lead is concise and accurate, allowing the reader to delve into the article for the details.--Milowent (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it. It is more concise and yet if people want more detail they can go down further in the article. Or, of course, if they really want to learn about Prejean they can visit Hilton's blog or YouTube site.--InaMaka (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, good. I would say that "national attention" and "her answer" require further elaboration because otherwise they look like coded euphemisms. I think a more precise description of what happened is that she became involved in a controversy that received national attention, over an answer perceived by some as being anti-gay, after Paris Hilton and others made an issue of it. I do agree that the back-and-forth of the lawsuit, and the specific modeling contracts, are both overly detailed and better saved for the body of the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also advice some rephrasing in the final two sentences, so we're not saying "November 2009" twice in a row ("...settled in November 2009. That same month, Prejean released a book defending...") Also, I'm not sure that you can be ousted of a crown; one is ousted of a throne, stripped of a crown. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

I have raised the issue ot talk page accusations over at the BLP noticeboard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I saw it. I have commented. Don't you think that you have a conflict of interest by taking a position on "hate speech" and then being the person who enforces it? Of course you do. Hilton's comment are hate-filled and there is no reason to deny that or to cover it up.--InaMaka (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have one question for Mr. Nat Gertler. Are you in any way connected to Perez Hilton? Just curious. A simple yes or no shall do. Thanks. Caden ^cool 19:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wha? Are u fookin' kidding me?? Yes, I am sure Perez Hilton has an army of wiki admins doing his bidding.--Milowent (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, are you for real? There are paid Internet geeks running around editing Wikipedia all the time. There politicians, celebrities, and yes, even hate-filled gossip columnists that pay people to do this. It is not our fault that you are obviously unaware of this behaviour.--InaMaka (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not connected to Mr. Hilton, nor even a fan (and for that matter, I think the cotentended quote does far more to make him look bad than the person he was commenting on.) Nor, for that matter, am I an admin. However, I am someone who has botherd to read WP:BLP, to see that unsourced contentious material should be deleted, as well as someone who knows that both practically and legally the term being thrown around means more than just saying something about someone you hate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Mediation

Would anyone be opposed to formal mediation for the issues surrounding this article. So far there are two sprawling threads on User talk:Jimbo Wales and at WP:BLPN where nobody is really listening to each other. I think we could use some outside help in trying to find common ground, instead of continuing to snipe at each other. Would everyone be willing to commit to this? AniMate 05:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen how a mediation works, but if it its agreeable to InaMaka, it seems worthwhile to pursue.--Milowent (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

After some investigation, I think probably going through the WP:MEDCAB is going to be our best option for now, rather than formal mediation. We haven't quite exhausted the steps in the dispute resolution to satisfy the mediation committee. We have several issues that users are disagreeing on to various extents. The way I see it, there's still lingering disagreement about how much weight and exposure Perez Hilton's quote will be given in this article, if any at all. What kind of BLP protections should be afforded too Prejean and Hilton on this talk page. And, I guess, who should be allowed to edit the article, depending on what their political beliefs are. Those seem to be the main points of contention that I can find. We've attempted to discuss this two other places, and no one outside of the people who edit this article has really commented too much, since the conversation gets overwhelmed by the same participants on the article. The other solution would be to file three or four separate article requests for comment to get outside opinions here. I'm more than willing to do so if informal mediation is rejected. AniMate 17:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. BLP is a very simple thing. Wikipedia articles are to precede with caution in an article about a living person--especially a living person that is not very well known. That is what we have here. Also, BLP cannot be voted away by a large majority or even a simple 51% majority. BLP is not subject to majority rule. So it cannot be voted away, which was clearly the intent of the informal vote above. Also, BLP cannot be mediated away. Just because there is a sit down and discussion BLP does not go away. As I pointed out numerous times BLP was violated over and over again in this article when there was references to the "C" word. Repetition of the phrase "DB" five times, etc. BLP has been violated. That fact is not in dispute. The article if is in a good stable state right now, that does not violated BLP or NPOV. Why would we move toward violating BLP and NPOV again? There has not been a sufficient explanation on why the exact quote is necessary--other than to create a BLP, NPOV violating sensationalistic tabloid trash article. What is there to mediate or vote on? BLP cannot be violated. It is as simple as that. As I pointed out earlier, the editors of the Alec Baldwin article agreed that quoting even one word of Baldwin's rant toward his daughter shed negative light on Baldwin and its inclusion violated BLP and NPOV. As I pointed out earlier, the editors of the Mel Gibson article agreed that posting the mug shot was sensationalistic and it violated BLP and NPOV. Just because something was said or happened and that it can be backed up with a reliable source does not mean that it must be placed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a not a tabloid. Wikipedia does not defame the reputation of a living person and Wikipedia does NOT repeat the defamatory material of others--just because the defamatory material is reliably sourced. For example, I have asked editor NatGertler numerous times to provide a detailed explanation on how the word for word quote makes the article better. I have asked NatGertler why the quote must be in the article. The only response that I have received is a total non-reponse in that he claims that since it happened and it can be reliably sourced Wikipedia must publish it. That is not, in anyway, an explanation on how the direct quote makes the article better. It is not, in anyway, an explanation on how the direct does not violated BLP or NPOV. As far as I can see there is a BLP violation and a NPOV violation and the article is a coatrack. Why do we have to have long dissertations on what Hilton thinks about anything. He is a blogger that got P.O. at the comments of Prejean. We have pointed out that he thought the comments were stupid. That's it. Enff Said. Let's just move on. A direct quote from him does not add anything to the article and it does violated BLP and NPOV.--InaMaka (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>InaMaka, part of the disagreement is about whether or not it is a BLP and NPOV violation. There's a group of people here who, in good faith, do not believe that the Hilton quote and related issues fall under a BLP and/or NPOV prohibition. (And please don't bring up again some of the near-vandal types who attacked the article prior to the most recent flurry of attention, let's talk about the current group of interested editors, okay?) I think everybody here now agrees that BLP cannot be voted away, but the issue under dispute here is whether or not BLP is violated at all. I know that you and Rico and Caden honestly believe that the statements and quotes would be prohibited under BLP, and that you believe so in good faith -- but that assumption of good faith is something that the three of you are not extending to other people, not at all. Frankly, that irritates the hell out of me, but I'm willing to go through a formal mediation process to see if there is any middle ground in the applicability of BLP and NPOV, which I think there is. I'm no longer sure that you're willing to grant those who disagree with you the same level of basic courtesy and good faith that I'm granting you. Without that, mediation will fail -- and the next stop after that will be subject RFCs, and if those fail ... -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. ArgleBargleIV: You really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to discussing "good faith". I have been working on this article on and off for about one year. During the intitial furor over Prejean/Hilton you were one of the editors that summarily reverted my "good faith" edits to keep the article in line with BLP and NPOV. I was attempting to remove the five different copies of the direct quote and you (with the assistance of other editors). Now with that comment I do not mean to imply that you were as vicious or as vocal as TharsHammar for example (who has been permanently blocked since then I might add). But one of the other editors in the current situation, Wikidemon, was also part of the group that was ruling over the article with an iron fist and was constantly screaming "censorship." That behaviour was unacceptable and it lead to a BLP and NPOV diaster of an article. But "good faith" requires that all sides be heard and for about one full year I was not hear, Rico was not heard and Caden was not heard and other good faith editors that believe that negative information about Carrie Prejean MUST be treated cautiously because she falls into a very specific situation of the BLP rules was not heard. The rule that applies to her is the one where people that qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia but at not very well known. Jimbo has stated over and over again that in the situations of BLP it is better for Wikipedia is err on the side of caution. I have given you very concrete examples of where Wikipedia exhibited caution and those situations are very similar to Ms. Prejean's. Also, good faith also requires that the editors not scream "CENSORSHIP" every time someone makes an edit that they do not agree with. Wikipedia cannot publish everything. That is a legal fact. There are libel laws that we MUST be aware of be and be careful around. Screaming the word censorship all the time is not editing in good faith. It was screamed at the editors who had BLP concerns over and over again by the editors who were in favor of the "DB" phrase. Right now, not one year ago, NatGertler has been screaming "censorship" at least two times and that is NOT good faith. I have asked you and I have asked NatGertler to provide a detailed explanation of how the quote adds to the article. I have not received that explanation. I have received by NatGertler for example is that the quote if fully reliable sourced, but that is NOT a explanation in why the quote does not violate BLP or NPOV or undue weight or how the repetition of the quote and the rest of Hilton's hate-filled quote is not a coatrack. And above all, Jimbo has called the article a coatrack. It is difficult to see good faith when our side of the debate has been constantly reverted for about one year and we have been screamed "censorship" at over and over again. Also, the most recent non-good faith tactic is make the false argument that I cannot express my personal belief that Hilton's speech is hate speech without quoting an expert. That is a load of hooey and if his tactic was based upon a Wikipedia rule then an admin or Jimbo or somebody would come along and tell me to stop it--not just NatGertler. This is another example of the bullying and intimidation that the BLP/NPOV/coatrack concerned editors have been getting for about one full year. As a matter of fact you wrote on Jimbo's page that we should not have even gone there. I believe that mediation is just example of forum shopping and another tactic to over-ride BLP and NPOV and sensationalism and undue weight concerns. The BLP folks are looking out for Wikipedia's best interest and the wikilawyering is getting tiresome. Just explain how the direct quote is necessary and just explain why it is not sensational. Just explain what the direct quote adds to the article that is not already there. That is the only real issue and that can be handled right here or on Jimbo's page. We went to a different forum, Jimbo's talk page, and you and other editors cried foul! Now, you want a different forum. The article is in compliance with BLP and NPOV right now. Why do we need to move backward to quote the hate speech of Hilton? We know he does not like her and we know that he did not like her answer. Why do we need to repeat the hate speech to put forth what we already know and have stated? We don't.--InaMaka (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(out of sequence) - just visiting and saw the above. I have no idea what this is about or why I'm the target of random nonsense, but I'm not very eager to engage in a discussion that's predicated on accusations of bad faith. If Perez Hilton called Carrie Prejean a "dumb bitch" we have to decide whether it's of due weight and relevant to include it, which is a steep hurdle to overcome but seems plausible given Hilton's role in the controversy. It's not censorship per se but it would be a violation of WP:NOT#CENSORED if we do decide to include it to bowdlerize the specific words Hilton used. That's pretty obvious, and saying I am "crying censorship" over that is ridiculous. Obviously it doesn't belong in the article five times, or in a lurid fashion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but I'm afraid the incidents we are covering did occur mostly in the tabloids - a crucial distinction. We're not a rugby tournament either, but we do cover the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Before you continue suggesting that I've not said why I think the quote should be included, you should review my postings here of 14:33, 17 March 2010; 18:43, 17 March 2010; and 21:01, 17 March 2010. You may not agree with the reasons, but it is clearly false that I have not given them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I read that stuff. I know why you have not repeated on the talk page because those are the time you scream "CENSORSHIP" in a non-good faith way. You did not repeat your censorship claim because you know that your censorship claim is not in agreement with ArgleBargleIV claim that you and Bargle and AniMate have all been editing in a good faith manner. You did not repeat them here because the screams of censorship are not looked upon as favorably by most editors. We are called editors because we EDIT and we decide what is and isn't appropriate for the article. I happen to be focused upon BLP and NPOV and undue weight. Your comments that you refuse to repeat are focused upon: (1) reliability (not relevant to the BLP or NPOV or undue weight because we know the quote is reliable) and (2) screaming censorship (not relevant because editing is matter of leaving in and taking out, not censorship and Hilton's dislike of Prejean and her opinions are well documented in the article, the direct quote of the hate speech is irrelevant). You did not deal with the undue weight issue or the NPOV issue or the BLP issue you merely drew a conclusion and repeated over and over again without providing a reason why the quote is absolutely necessary. The quote makes the article a coatrack that provides a forum for Hilton to rant about Prejean and to smear and defame her. You have not dealt with these issues. You just repeat over and over again "it was said and we can prove it" and "censorship." Neither or this mere claim deal with BLP, NPOV or undue weight.--InaMaka (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, InaMaka. There were never any grounds for a libel suit, this is just about what is reasonable. Just because you are happy that dumb bitch doesn't appear in the article right now, I am pretty sure that unless this gets settled more officially, casual editors will keep trying to insert it, because they will not agree with your opinion. The first page of google results for "Carrie Prejean" is far worse then Carrie's article. BTW, did you hear she just got sued?[1]--Milowent (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You have not dealt with the issue at hand. What does the direct quote contribute to the article that is not already expressed in the article. We have made it clear that Hilton hates Prejean. We have made it clear that Hilton thinks Prejean is stupid. In this comment here you a comment, not even explanation or argument, just a comment that does not deal with the BLP issue or the NPOV issue or the undue weight issue. You are just stating that there will other editors who will come along and they will want to put the direct quote back in. So? We have already agreed that just because sheer numbers of editor want to violate BLP does not mean that is appropriate to violated BLP. Majority rule does not end BLP. Your argument, if you call it one, is in essence "There are going to others who will want to use Wikipedia to defame so we should just put the direct quote in there and simply ignore BLP, NPOV and undue weight." That is not an argument at all but a plea to surrender to the unwashed hordes that want to use Wikipedia to assist Hilton in repetition of his hate speech. Neither you or NatGertler, or AniMate, or Argle have explained why the section of BLP that applies to Prejean does not apply. She is notable simply because she won Miss California, but she is not a nationwide celebrity to which NY Times vs. Sullivan applies to. Wikipedia should not have to face libel claims (the reason for BLP) because editors feel the need to needlessly repeat Hilton's hate speech.--InaMaka (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have answered your question before, and in much shorter posts than yours, but I guess you choose to ignore them. The only reason Carrie was elevated to national and international attention was she answered a question in a boneheaded fashion, and Perez attacked her viciously. It all went downhill from that, and now even her own PR people are suing her.--Milowent (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. its mind-boggling how many quotes from Carrie Prejean are now in the article, directly about the controversy. Yet, Perez is silenced by CensorMaka. Am I being somewhat sarcastic? Yes.--Milowent (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that comment is good. A direct personal attack on me as an editor by Milowent. Please do not engage in personal attacks. I am not surprised though because I had not heard the scream of "censorship" in a while.--InaMaka (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not uncharacteristic, since Milowent wrote Otterathome, "You are a turd editor."[2] -- Rico 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is an article about Prejean so it is focused on her. What an attention-seeking gossip columnist says belongs in his article (to illustrate his style); the issue is covered appropriately here. Please look at WP:CIVIL which indicates that even on April 1, you should not address other editors in that manner. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka, I gotta invoke WP:TL;DR. I'm not going to read another overly long screed about how horrible everyone is whose opinion differs from yours. Are you interested in mediation or not? AniMate 23:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is your choice to read my comments or not, but I am not going away. This comment is just another example of where one side of this disagreement is not editing in good faith--to the direct contradiction of the claims of Bargle above. This type of non-response comment (red herring) is what has been going for about year by the folks that feel Hilton's hate speech MUST be repeated in the article.--InaMaka (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you interested in mediation? AniMate 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we either strike, ignore, collapse or close accusations of bad faith here, or the repeated characterizations of Paris Hilton's comments as "hate speech". This is not the appropriate place to launch these kinds of accusations, and doing it here drags down the environment for collegial editing. Please concentrate on proposals to improve the article. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Its simple. Hilton's comments have been called hate speech by others, including Liz Smith the famous columnist. Part of the debate about this article is about how much Hilton just clearly hates Prejean. Since he engaged in hate speech I am going to call it what it is. Once again, these comments from Wikidemon do not provide any explanation of what repeating Hilton's hate speech adds to the article that is not already there. Everyone knows he does not like her. Everyone already knows that he did not like her comments. Repeating his hate speech just provides him with a forum in Wikipedia to defame someone he does not like and violates BLP and NPOV.--InaMaka (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not so simple. You're calling your opinion fact, and using a gossip columnist to back it up. By that logic, we could easily find other gossip columnists who agree with Hilton and declare that Prejean is factually a "db". Inmate A 19:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Horse hockey. When are going to explain what the hate speech adds to the article that isn't already in the article?--InaMaka (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck does "horse hockey" mean? When are you going to explain how describing Hilton's words as hate speech isn't a BLP violation? Also, are you interested in mediation? AniMate 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka does not have to explain how describing Hilton's words as hate speech isn't a BLP violation. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing argument that it is. -- Rico 20:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be a BLP violation to accuse Hilton of engaging in hate speech in article space. In article talk space it's probably within the bounds of acceptability - to do it in the course of reasonable on-topic discussion. However, it is not hate speech by a long shot. Calling women bitches when one is upset or wishes to provoke is simple sexism, which is a long way from hate speech. Is there any argument that Hilton was doing any more than using a sexist expletive towards someone he considered homophobic? Repeating the claim again and again all over the encyclopedia is soapboxing, and it is not leading to productive discussion. We get the idea, it's a bad thing to say. The real question is whether it's of due weight and suitably relevant to Prejean's notability. Normally, people calling each other names is not so noteworthy. What's the argument that it is? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's total bullshit coming from you Wikidemon. Hilton chose to use hate speech and did so again and again and clearly gets away with it because he's a homosexual. Your obvious attempts to shut us up with censorship, is quite typical of you and is of no surprise to me. The media has reported that he's used hate speech and people such as Liz Smith and others are talking about it. Keep denying it, and continue to defend Hilton all you want. It's called hate speech. Plain and simple. Caden ^cool 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Grasshopper be calm. Try to focus on edits and not editors. What do you think is being censored? AniMate 22:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All I can say to Hilton is: "Stop the hating."--InaMaka (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll ignore the outburst. I've done a little reading of the sources. On the question of the importance of Hilton's comments, this source[3] says that Hilton's use of the epithet "dumb bitch" is what "caught the national mainstream media's attention", which is a key step in the way the issue escalated. Although we don't shy away from harsh language per WP:NOT#CENSORED, nor is it necessary to use it gratuitously. This site[4] mentions that he called her "various unprintable words", a quaint exaggeration (plenty of news outlets will print cursewords) that we can safely say in a more straightforward way, e.g. that Hilton posted a number of derogatory comments (we could say "epithets") about Prejean, which brought media attention. I don't think it's especially relevant exactly what he said, from what I'm reading. He said several different things that were more like hurling insults than actually making a point. If we're reporting that person X taunted or insulted person Y, the actual text of the insults is usually besides the issue... and anyone who wants to know can just follow the link. So I really don't see the harm in describing rather than repeating the comments, as long as we can do it without sounding like we're using euphemisms. Similarly we don't have to repeat word-for-word Hilton's obviously exaggerated statement that Prejean's answer was the worst, we can simply say that Hilton criticized (or expressed displeasure, or something like that) at the answer. The question of whether Hilton's comments are rude, unprintable, sexist, hate speech, an immature temper tantrum, or whatever, is besides the point. The core issue is that Hilton made a big fuss over Prejean's answer, which the news media picked up on, and things took off from there. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikidemon: No truer words have been spoken. I have been in agreement with this point of view since I stated exactly the same thing almost one year ago. If you don't like the phrase that I used to describe Hilton's comments then by all means come up with something that gets the point across without quoting him directly. I never stated that I thought my wording was the best version or even the preferred version. I just stated over and over again that we don't need to repeat the exact words "db". It is not necessary. As I pointed out several times that is what the editors of the Alec Baldwin article agreed upon. In that article they agreed to leave out all of the words of Baldwin's rant--which made him look very bad--and they decided to merely state that he made inappropriate comments toward his daughter in a telephone message.--InaMaka (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. It's funny, I think we disagreed on the talk page but agree on the article. I guess I walked into the middle of a wiki dispute here. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The $64,000 Lawsuit

• Whilst the bickering continues above, Carrie is in the news again, apparently sued by the PR firm she hired to portray a "Christian" image on her behalf, for $64,000 in unpaid bills.Denver Post (March 30), The Week (UK) (Mar. 30), Dallas Observer (Mar 29). Anyone want to suggest how it should be worded in the article?--Milowent (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite being a horrid pov pusher that doesn't deserve an assumption of good faith, I'm going to say that this doesn't merit inclusion. It smacks of recentism. Unlike the lawsuits stemming from the Miss USA, this hasn't gotten widespread attention and I'm not sure how relevant it is to the bigger picture of Prejean's life. AniMate 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with AniMate: Wikipedia is not a news outlet; only events that have been shown to be of long-term significance should be added to a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if it gains significant coverage to the point of being relevant to a biography. Many people have been sued at some point in their lives, and unless it goes somewhere the claims made in unproven (or confidentially settled) civil lawsuits present significant BLP issues without elucidating the subject much. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Untrue, disputed, negative slur moved from article as trivia, per WP:BLP and WP:HARM

I have moved, "and said he believed her answer was the worst in pageant history," to this talk page.

I first questioned this content here.

More recently, I tried deleting the disputed content as "iinfo",[5] but ArglebargleIV promptly reverted my edit, stating, "you can't remove what else HIlton (sic) said."[6] I tried again to delete the disputed content as "iinfo. Also, not the worst in pageant history,"[7], but NatGertler reverted my edit, stating, "Please achieve consensus on Talk before restoring this controversial edit."[8]

I see several problems with it:

1. He didn't say he believed her answer was the worst in pageant history. He said it was.

2. It wasn't true. This is the worst answer in pageant history.

3. This judge was not a pageant historian, nor an authority on pageant history.

4. Since it wasn't true, and the judge was nobody to make such a claim, all it amounts to is a lie of an openly gay gossip blogger -- a self-described, "queen of all media," that doodles the word "HO" on women's photos and draws dicks shooting cum on their faces.

Because of the potential for harm to Miss Prejean's reputation, I think we should discuss it before restoring this disputed slur. -- Rico 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

When will we put in the article that Carrie was delivered to us by Jesus Christ? I mean, why should we even have an article about Carrie Prejean if we are going to distort beyond belief the reasons people will google her in the first place. I am going to work on some of the other 3,239,988 articles at this point.--Milowent (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. I've restored it. Obviously, it's his opinion, just as it is YOUR opinion that it was not the worst answer in pageant history. (My opinion, it certainly wasn't near the worst, but Hilton's saying that is part of the story.) When I have time to write this up, I'm taking this to the BLP noticeboard, because your removal of that is FAR beyond the requirements, or even the unspoken intent, of the BLP policy. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop violating policy. Wikipedia:HARM#For removal of sourced content states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."

"The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material," and you did not even attempt to prove "there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so." -- Rico 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed this. We've discussed just about every aspect of this article to death. There is a massive disagreement. Will anyone agree to mediation or are we just going to keep on going until one side gets tired? AniMate 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rico on this. The slur should be removed. It's beyond me as to why so many editors are fighting to include hate speech, slurs, and only God knows what else will come up in a matter of days by the left-wing folks who insist on using this article as a coatrack/attack page to vilify Carrie Prejean. Remember BLP applies here. Who cares what he has to say? I don't. Hilton's hate speech, slurs, etc, does not belong here. And Arglebargle, I disagree with your revert. Concerning mediation, I'm not sure if that will work. Caden ^cool 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation: "hateful bigot". That's a slur Caden. And if mediation won't work, what do you suggest. So far I'm the only person who has come up with any attempts to make this a productive conversation instead of two sides talking at each other. Please. Anybody. Come up with another idea. AniMate 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, mediation could be a good thing. I'm for it AniMate. And Ani feel free to strike out whatever you feel was a BLP in my earlier post. Thanks. Caden ^cool 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly totally excessive commentry, open a mediation case where these claims and comments can be assessed and dealt with without them being inserted here on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's get a mediation case going. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored - there's no plausible BLP argument here. Hilton said it and that statement was widely covered. Prejean doesn't have a positive reputation at this point, and Hilton's statement of what is obviously a personal opinion can hardly hurt her further than the far more serious things that followed. That's obvious from the wording as it is, but if anyone wants to make it any more obvious it could be reworded to say that Hilton "called her answer the worst in pageant history". The reason Hilton's antics are relevant is that they are at the core of the course of events that lead to her greatest notoriety. Regarding mediation, it can only be productive if the editors agree to remain calm, stop trying to edit war the article into the "right version", and stop accusing each other of things. Editors accusing each other of bad faith usually cannot agree on a mediated result. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts on mediation. The one thing you left out is that everyone has to agree to come to the table. AniMate 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this edit [9] doesn't look good - simple edit warring with no attempt to discuss or explain. I've reverted to the status quo version but won't get dragged into this further. I'm not 100% sure that Hilton's specific comment is significant enough to include but BLP is not the issue, it's sourcing, weight, and relevance. Something Hilton said about Prejean precipitated the whole incident, if we can properly source how that unfolded we should describe what it was. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

...Am I the only one talking about this while everyone else edit wars?[10][11] I see lots of accusations. Maybe I've missed something but it shouldn't be so hard. If there are further reverts from either side I'm going to go ahead and ask for page protection, the chips can fall where they may on which version gets preserved. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No you're not the only one, and the page is protected. I've been trying to get everyone to agree to mediation, but thus far InaMaka and RicoCorinth have studiously refused to even acknowledge my offer. I think it's our best bet at getting this conflict resolved, but I have a sinking feeling that because I was the one who suggested it, it won't be acceptable. AniMate 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"There's no plausible BLP argument here"?

BLP policy states:

• Wikipedia is not "to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

The claim that "her answer was the worst in pageant history," seems like a pretty "titillating claim" -- false, but titillating.

"The possibility of harm to living subjects" was "considered" -- and since including the titillating slag did harm to Miss Prejean's reputation, the denigration was included.

• "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

That didn't keep ArglebargleIV, NatGertler, Wikidemon or Trac from restoring the material.

• " Articles should document in a non-partisan manner"

That is the opposite of what has always happened here. The sides have broken down in the usual partisan way -- with firm adherents to the 'cause' (slagging Miss Prejean) wanting the denigration in the BLP, and those that say that violates BLP on the other.

• "Look out for biased or malicious content"

The disputed slag is both.

• "BLPs that are [...] negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to"

The Carrie Prejean attack coatrack of a living person is "negative in tone," in part because of the disputed denigration.

The BLP "appear[s] to have been created to disparage the subject," because it was created right after Prejean said that marriage was between a man and a woman -- and she was attacked and vilified, and the attacks and vilification were copied into this attack page.

There is no policy-compliant version to revert to. This BLP has always been an attack coatrack, in part because of the slag.

• "Biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

There is no neutral version. The BLP has always been an attack coatrack. Furthermore, this would argue for deletion of the disputed denigration. That would be paring.

Editors arguing for this attack coatrack argue that Prejean's notability stems largely or entirely from being a victim of another's actions.

Wikipedia editors have intentionally acted in a way that amounts to participating in prolonging the victimization, by tendentiously restoring the slag.

• "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care"

The contention that "her answer was the worst in pageant history," may adversely affect Miss Prejean's reputation. (Therefore, it's in the article.)

• "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information."

The judge was not a pageant historian, nor an authority on pageant history. He also said that he thought that was the first time in Miss USA ever that a contestant has been booed. When I listen to the video, I only hear cheering. Here is Miss USA getting booed. Hear the difference?

Hilton's contention was not true. This is the worst answer in pageant history. Since it wasn't true, and the judge was nobody to make such a claim, all it amounts to is a lie of an openly gay gossip blogger -- a self-described, "queen of all media," that doodles the word "HO" on women's photos and draws dicks shooting cum on their faces. The vast majority of the public is heterosexual, so the false claim of "Perez Hilton" meant nothing to most people. Most people oppose gay marriage. Most people think that Carrie Prejean's answer was nothing more than saying what most people know is what most people believe. Hilton said her answer was the worst in pageant history. And most heterosexuals that learned of this probably thought, "So?" Most people never heard of Hilton before or after his snarky fit, so it could be persuasively argued that they don't care if he liked Miss California USA's answer or not. Most people don't care what the former Miss California USA thinks. They have their own opinion. Most people don't care about beauty pageants. Miss America was the principal beauty pageant and most people didn't care about it -- and it just lost its TV contract. Miss USA's next. My question is probably the same as most people's. Some gay judge, that almost nobody'd ever heard of, said her answer was the worst in pageant history. So?

• "It is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles"

It would be inappropriate to put in the BLP that "her answer was the worst in pageant history." It's not much better to put that someone else said it if it wasn't true, and the denigrator isn't an authority in the area.

• "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."

Several editors disagree with the denigration being in the article. That establishes "doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate."

Three of us have been tendentiously reverted when we have tried "par[ing] back to a" more "policy-compliant version," by deleting the contentious slag, so the BLP is in violation of BLP policy.

• "Editors adding, restoring, or undeleting material about living persons must ensure it meets all Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. If material that was previously removed or deleted is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"

We do not have consensus for including the denigration, yet it is in the article, so the BLP is in violation of BLP policy.

• "The Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs [...] containing [...] smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity [...] be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest."

Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean's answer was not the worst in pageant history. This one was. It may be true that a self-described, "queen of all media" -- that doodles the word "HO" on women's photos and draws dicks shooting cum on their faces -- said it, but that doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. It amounts to a smear on a 22-year-old college student that is of both ephemeral and marginal interest, although not perhaps to the editors that have been attracted to this BLP.

I'm intimately familiar with this so-called "BLP", yet I know very little about Carrie Prejean. I know some openly gay gossip blogger called her answer the worst in pageant history, but I know it's not true, so it doesn't cause me to know anything more about her.

Well what do you know? I made a plausible BLP argument. -- Rico 05:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The ABC source is absolutely clear; it uses these words: "Hilton has been blogging about what he called the "worst answer in pageant history" since the show ended." So it's as unequivocally true as that the Earth goes around the sun that Hilton said what the paraphrase in the article says he said. However, perhaps an alternative phrasing can make it clear that Wikipedia's stance is that, while Hilton said it, the encyclopedia itself has no opinion as to whether it's a true statement or not. I would suggest we change:

The media attention intensified after Hilton posted a video blog on his website, where he insulted Prejean and said he believed her answer was the worst in pageant history.

To:

The media attention intensified after Hilton posted a video blog on his website, where he insulted Prejean and expressed his opinion that it was the "worst answer in pageant history".

By the using the phrase "his opinion" and explicitly quoting Hilton, the phrasing I think emphasizes that Hilton's assertion is one person's opinion. Since there's an entire following paragraph about the opinions of others supporting Prejean's answer ("It wasn't a bad answer", "[people] criticized Hilton and defended Prejean for honestly stating her personal beliefs", "The New York Times reports [...]"), it's NPOV and absurd to remove the well-sourced criticism and retain the support. Perhaps more immediately juxtaposing Hilton's statements with some of the statements of support would also balance the presentation. Studerby (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore the massive wall of text up above and say that Studerby's changes seem perfectly fine to me. I'd also like to point out that the administrator who protected the page, per RicoCorinth's request, saw no BLP violation in the disputed text. AniMate 07:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that this was Hilton's opinion or that Hilton believed it, just that he said it. He was ranting, which is different than having an opinion or belief. My suggestion is to say that he *called* her answer the worst, or to leave out the direct quotes and instead just summarize that he posted derogatory things about her and her answer. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Prejean's answer to the Hilton's question is most of why she is well known today. While his comment isn't flattering, it's reasonable to include it. And by quoting Hilton, we don't need to state it was his opinion since the attribution does that anyway. And with attribution, the article is not presenting this as "truth" but Hilton's "opinion". And finally, this is a quote about her answer which is certainly one step removed from Prejean herself.Mattnad (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Quote

From Jimbo's talk page concerning the Carrie Prejean article:

“

Clearly Wikipedia makes it clear that we must use caution when Wikipedia repeats material that is defamatory. Hilton's comments are hate speech and we must use caution in repeating them.--InaMaka (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We should also feel the need for caution before censoring and misrepresenting a topic. If Wikipedia or its contributors are sued for repeating allegations in reliable media sources, it may be distressing but it would not be embarrassing. Even the people of the UK are slowly making progress in repealing unjust libel laws.[12]

But consider an article like the recently featured Insane Clown Posse, which scrupulously keeps mention of Juggalos to a minimum; with even the sub-article giving only a brief mention that police gang units all over the country have been describing "Juggalo gangs". I actually suspect the censored version is right on the topic, because face painting is probably just rather convenient for criminals - but we shouldn't be choosing the "right" side, we should be presenting both sides. The point is: what are we going to do when a grieving mother and her fancy lawyer show up, and she points at the Wikipedia page and says, "Johnnie showed me this and said there was nothing to worry about, so I let him go...<sob>...and that was the last time I saw him alive." I understand of course that all disclaimers apply, but if there is a deliberate and systematic effort throughout the organization to suppress all mention of unflattering media reports about people, Wikipedia will have neither moral nor legal ground to stand on. Wnt (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with virtually everything you said here. You are wrong about the meaning of 'censorship', you are wrong about the law, and you are wrong about our ethical obligations. We have a very strong need for a sense of responsibility about biographies, and this includes being extremely careful about repeating irresponsible allegations uncritically, and in cases like this one, pretending to ourselves that a random smattering of negative media reports gives us sufficient information to be able to write a proper and ethically responsible biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

”

Why she received national attention

In the lede: "Prejean received national attention in 2009 stemming from her answer to a question about same-sex marriage in the 2009 Miss USA Pageant." I think this is generally not true. Her answer was, as many sources have confirmed, not particularly out of line with mainstream opinion. Indeed, I think her answer is rather more liberal than most people, as she seems to allow for and support the legality of gay marriage, while saying that it would not be a right choice for her or people in her family.

No, the reason she received national attention was Perez Hilton's vicious attacks on her. He called her a "dumb bitch" - a fact that we ignore, making it seem that he simply criticized her remarks, perhaps responsibly and reasonably. Had Perez not gone on his subsequent tirades, it seems clear that her answer would have attracted virtually no notice whatsoever. Describing the incident as we do is wrong.

The overall effect here is to give the reader a false impression of what happened.

This is not NPOV, and so I do not recommend it as a replacement: "Prejean received national attention in 2009 after she gave a mainstream answer to a question about same-sex marriage in the 2009 Miss USA Pageant and was subsequently the victim of a smear campaign by gossip blogger Perez Hilton." Nonetheless, this is true, and the lede needs to find a way to reflect this fact so that the reader is not misled.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside any opinion about the wrongness of Hilton's insults, it is true in a causal sense that Hilton triggered the events that gave her wide exposure, but her notability is more a matter of the exposure iteself than from Hilton. Had she been in a public feud with the pageant, become the darling of conservative advocacy journalists, appeared on the View, insulted Larry King, had topless photos released, been fired, threatened lawsuit, etc., but after some other triggering event, her notability would be largely the same. His comments thrust her into the public eye but, once there, everything she did became tabloid fodder. I would compare her with William Hung, who as that article points out "gained fame ... as a result of" a single embarrassing event (his rendition of the Ricky Martin song on Star Search), as contrasted with, say, Richard Jewell, whose entire notability is a matter of the event (discovering the pipe bomb at the Olympic stadium then being unfairly accused of planting it). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would second Wikidemon's take on this. Hilton got the ball rolling, but Prejean took the ball and ran with it (in positive and negative ways). One could also liken her to Joe the Plumber in that a quick exchange snowballed into a much bigger story that would have otherwise been minimal. Joe would have quickly faded from view if he hadn't participated in the McCain campaign, took many interviews, and tried to leverage his fame into a new vocation. Like Prejean, he became the target of criticism, had parts of his life opened to scrutiny, and was used by others to score political point.Mattnad (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And I will third this, and point out that it doesn't change my main point. We are currently misleading people about how she came to fame in the first place. It wasn't as the results of her remarks (which were more or less not that exciting and would not have gained any notice for her one way or the other) but as the result of Hilton's attack. It is true that she has also gone on since then to do other things, but that doesn't impact our need to get the facts right on how she got to be famous in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I agree with your agreement. Thanks for being a voice of reason here. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried injecting this,[13] but was reverted less than 24 hours later (with no discussion).[14] -- Rico 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true she was attacked by some, but also praised by others. How do we reconcile these polarized responses?Mattnad (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of these are very easy to resolve. First, the national attention arose (initially) from the statements Hilton made. Time-wise it happened shortly after the statements, not concurrently. The statements were a link in the chain of causation, starting with his question, her answer, his public comments, the debate, and then all the other stuff. We don't have to repeat them or pass judgment on them, we can simply say that he insulted and accused her. Regarding attacks and praise, it's easy enough to source and describe the noteworthy parts. She became something of an activist for some conservative issues and was defended and praised in the conservative advocacy circles.http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/18/carrie-prejean-wows-values-voters/ I don't know if anyone notable other than Hilton attacked her for her answer, but she was certainly criticized by Donald Trump, Larry King, the pageant, and others, over her claimed violations of the contest rules, subsequent public statements, and various other things. I think all that is very plain in the sources and should not be contentious. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"various other things" -- now that's an understatement to be sure. Those who made her into a Madonna had that thrown back at them when she turned out to be only human.Mattnad (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

gay qualifier

"Gay" is an appropriate qualifier for Hilton, because it is both accurate and relevant, given that the contentious topic was same-sex marriage, and thus his sexuality can be reasonably seen as informing his viewpoint and reaction. (It would not be an appropriate qualifier if the topic were Favorite Fast Food Burger or somesuch.) Jimbo said on his talk page "There is absolutely no doubt that her answer would have gone completely unnoticed, were it not for "the openly gay gossip blogger" (and it is not homophobia to note who he is and why he might behave in that fashion!)" --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate to tag people in that fashion. It's taint by sexual preference. It's POV to note a person's gender, religion, nationality, etc., as a reason for their having an opinion on a civil rights matter. "Openly" gay, to begin with, infers that there is a reason not to be open - it's like calling someone an "admitted" agnostic or a "documented" Italian-American. If we can find appropriate NPOV sourcing of due weight and reliability that ties his actions to his sexual preference -- say, he did it because he is an advocate for gay rights, or as a matter of lashing out at people whose opinions on his sexuality offend him -- then it is appropriate to give this some mention in the body of the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything I have read about the 'incident' described Hilton as "openly gay," because it provides context. -- Rico 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the reader misses a lot if Mr. Hilton's sexuality is not noted. - Schrandit (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What "the reader" will lose out on is a bit of homophobic POV pushing, is all. This is the sort of thing done in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area as well, when a critic becomes a "Jewish critic" or an "Islamic critic" rather than just "a critic". It is included to introduce bias. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So every time Hilton is involved in a matter of politics or sexuality we'll call him "openly gay blogger Paris Hilton"? How about Barney Frank - whenever he takes a position on legislation we'll call him "openly gay" too? How about Joe Lieberman - we should call him Jewish whenever noting his opinion on Israel? The more responsible sources (for example, New York Times, Wall Street Journal) generally do not use his sexual orientation to identify him, either leaving it out entirely[15] or mentioning it for context rather than as an identifier to qualify who he is.[16] Even when "gay" is used in that way, the more solid sources generally do not use "openly" gay.[17] Again, if we can responsibly source a connection between his sexual orientation and his actions here we should describe that in the body of the article, documented with appropriate sourcing. To go in the lede as the sole identifier it has to be of due weight. Right now it isn't even sourced properly. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It can be sourced.[18] -- Rico 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sourced statement to the article that he is gay,[19] but we still need a source on why it matters. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We only need a source on why it matters to put into the article why it matters. -- Rico 20:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this very narrow issue may provide us with an opportunity to move out of "conflict" mode and into "trust building" mode. I daresay no one will imagine that I'm homophobic (I suppose some might, but still) and yet I do think that it is relevant to understanding the events here that Perez Hilton is "openly gay". To answer Wikidemon, I don't think in every issue it would be relevant to take note of Barney Frank's sexuality, and I do agree that in some contexts it would be simply a smear or an irrelevancy introduced in order to bias a debate. At the same time, there are certainly issues in which it would be relevant. (And this is, in principle, the same as the Israel/Palestine question, isn't it? Sometimes it really is relevant that someone is Jewish or Islamic, if it ties directly into the issue at hand.)

Why is it relevant here? Well, to give a bit of background thinking and perspective, the reason is that Perez enacts, quite deliberately I suppose, a huge public persona. A very stereotypically gay public persona. He's a self-proclaimed "Queen of Media". And so to grasp the spectacle that he created, and the derision he heaped on Carrie Prejean, it's important to understand that persona. I think if we simply described him as "pageant judge" then people who don't know who he is wouldn't get a full picture.

I don't pretend to know the right answer, in terms of exactly how to let the reader know just enough about Hilton to understand this story. But I'd like to move us away from the notion that the only two boxes to put each other in are "pro-gay" and "homophobic".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If the sources say why it is relevant, we can build on that. Sources that merely say that he is gay and leave it up to the reader's imagination and prejudices to infer why, are not doing what reliable news sources are supposed to do, to report things they can document or observe. At any rate, it's an iffy business to use adverbs, adjectives, and dependent clauses, as opposed to assertions of fact, from sources to try to decide how we should word things in the lede. Taking out the uncomfortable implications of attributing a person's stance on gay rights to their sexuality, I've seen a similar issue in many articles about whether to use an adjective in front of someone's name because some of the sources use the adjective in their own introductions. They're written as news pieces, and have their own conventions about ledes, headlines, colorful details, etc., which is different than writing an encyclopedia. Even if we copied language and styles and not just verifiable facts, we would have to do a survey for weight reasons. Anyway, ledes are suppoed to contain only verifiable information that's already sourced in the body of the article, right? So to start I added a mention to the body of the article that Hilton is gay. But that still doesn't establish why it is relevant. Without a source as to why it matters, we're either engaging in synthesis or encouraging synthesis in the mind of the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there no source that connects Hilton's question and response to Prejean's answer with his sexual identity? He reacted pretty strongly which could be due to his personal feelings, and/or sexual-political conscience on the matter. In this article, Prejean connects Hilton's sexuality with his response [20]. Not sure if it's enough, but it's a start.Mattnad (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're in the realm of speculation it could be a gay person's simmering frustration over being considered less than equal finally reaching the boiling point - if the life partner of someone of a different race heard that answer back in the era when such marriages were illegal they might have acted out too. It could have been a weird personality conflict. Some people just rub each other the wrong way, and lots of people hate on beauty queens. He could just be crazy or out of touch. There's the whole background of the peculiar old institution of American beauty pageants, particularly those run by promoters like Trump and Hilton. How much of anything that goes on in a beauty pageant is reality and how much is contrived? Maybe someone put him up to it. Maybe it was staged by him or her, the pageant, or all of the above, to attract publicity. So many of these public feuds among celebrities are dreamed up in publicist's offices. It probably did well for both of their careers in the long run. Who knows? I'm highlighting the speculation to show how many possibilities there are when you simply note that he's gay without getting to the bottom of it. We could use more context if it's out there. His being gay is a clue that seems like it should be relevant. If I were a detective or a journalist I would think so, and try to follow up on it to get the real story. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A point of agreement first, and then a clarification of my meaning. It is of course "uncomfortable" (and wrong) to prematurely draw an association between a person's sexual orientation and their political views. That's fine. That's not really my point, though. My point is that Perez Hilton is the public persona of Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. - and that public persona is a very loud and very stereotypical "gay" persona. He's famously "bitchy" in his style, and plays that character to a "T". It's a genius character, and how much of it reflects the real person, I have no idea, nor do I really care, nor is it relevant here.

My point is that his public persona is relevant to his remarks. Why did he lash out and call her names? Because that's the sort of thing he does. That's his job in the world. That's why he's famous. He draws snarky things on photos and posts them on the Internet. He plays a larger than life character.

It's not really about his sexual orientation or his politics.

I do take very seriously the question about how we shouldn't engage in synthesis beyond the sources. But what I am saying is that the sources which say that he's openly gay, aren't necessarily homophobic, playing on homophobia, or anything else. They are pointing out, rightly I think, that he's not just a "pageant judge" in the context of these remarks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits

I just wanted to make really clear here that these are edits I'm making as an ordinary editor seeking to help improve the article and (hopefully) defuse some of the tension around this article. Please do not treat them as in any way special or privileged. Treat my edits with respect, in the same way you would anyone's. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, right direction. I think "attacked her verbally", "took exception", and "criticized" are all a little under-inclusive. In the vernacular, he flew off the handle and in doing so he badmouthed her publicly. To describe it as a mere criticism suggests that it's a rational, measured critique. I think "disparaged" is a little more inclusive and descriptive of what it was.[21] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Disparaged is a good choice, and addresses my "attack" concerns (although I will note that the mention of "crude remarks" does mitigate against the concern of rational and measured.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I just have to wonder how many people care that an openly gay gossip blogger ripped a Miss USA contestant like this.

This is just grade school-type stuff.

I think a lot of people might just dismiss a person's antics, upon learning that these are the type of antics that this person is known for.

I think that, outside of homosexuals and same-sex marriage activists (and defense of marriage activists), not many care.

Not that many people form their opinions based on what a beauty pageant contestant thinks.

I'm guessing that not that many people know about Perez Hilton, or care about his antics.

So how worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia is this?

And to what extent is it recentism? -- Rico 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted[22] the previous version of above comment - it's offensive, off-topic, WP:SOAP, and a WP:BLP violation. The above editor has just reinserted it,[23] (in slightly different form),[24] which seems to continue a pattern of provocative statements here and on other pages. I'm sectioning it off because it does not seem related to the main heading, rather than edit warring even over a BLP issue. Does anyone have any objections to closing / archiving / removing it? If this doesn't improve I think we'll have to seek some help from administrators. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor added more, and moved the section header (which I'll delete rather than edit war because it is out of place).[25] - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, your comment is out of line and you should remove it. If you won't, I'm reasonably confident an administrator will. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, Rico: Everyone here thinks Hilton's "antics" are relevant to the article. That includes your ace in the hole, Jimbo, in his role as editor. As to the rest of your comment, your bad faith is apparent. AniMate 21:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm anyone's "ace in the hole" here but mostly what I am hoping to do is help, if I can, to lower the level of hostility all around, because I don't think we're necessarily that far away from agreement. Rico, even though I tend to agree with you on the editorial issues, and I'm working to get people to see that one need not be a support of Miss Prejean's views nor homophobic or anything else to have a problem with certain ways that things have been presented here, I also think that this is an honest editorial discussion and that it's important to build trust and reduce conflict. Try to take a calmer approach and see more humanity in those you're disagreeing with?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as he all but refused to deal with any of the editors here and solely focused on your talk page, I'd say he thought you were the ace in the hole. I'm frankly confused by his editorial decisions. When I came back to this article, after seeing the posts on your page, I did a fairly major rewrite. That was met with hostility and bad faith. He's claimed it should be deleted, but won't nominate it for deletion. He won't even acknowledge my offer to take this to mediation. All he does is post on your talk page, and several of those were posts trying to prove that the active editors on this page were biased and shouldn't be allowed to edit here. And when he does deign to edit the article, he removes uncontroversial information in what I can only assume is an attempt to bolster his argument that this is nothing more than attack coatrack BLP1E travesty that has to be deleted. I understand you think this is a coatrack, I don't think it is nearly as bad as you do. Perhaps if either of you would let us know how you think the article can be improved rather than what's wrong with it, we can get this resolved. AniMate 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You know I've been discussing on this talk page,[26][27] because you've replied, "I'm just going to ignore [it]."[28] -- Rico 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My post, which I've improved, has never had anything to do with how much of anything I see in any Wikipedia editors at all.

It has only to do with the worthiness of inclusion of something most people have probably forgotten, if they even ever knew about it in the first place. -- Rico 22:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If Prejean is not notable, then we are going to be eliminating every person whose primary claim to notability is a state-level pageant win - I'm not saying that that's not a viable stance, but it's certainly one with far larger repercussions than this one article. And if we accept that Prejean is notable, it's not hard to find that the bulk of the attention that has been paid to her is due to her answer to the Hilton question and the foofraw which ensued. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, you keep linking to WP:IINFO, but I'm not sure why. Obviously 1 (plot), 2 (lyrics), 3 (statistics), and 4 (FAQs) don't apply. I'm guessing you're not trying to rule this out on #4, which deals with news reports about a single events, since there are multiple events addressed in this biography. She became Miss California, she was first runner-up for Miss America, their was the controversy created by Hilton, she was embraced by the gay marriage opposition, she lost her crown, she wrote a book, she got engaged... so that kind of rules out that this is a news report. So I guess you're saying this falls under #5 which I will quote in full: Who's who Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. The bolding is mine, but I'd say the coverage here goes beyond a single event. Now, since you are so willing to engage us on this talk page, why don't you explain how you would like the article improved instead of this non-stop bitching about what's wrong. AniMate 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Aside from general complaints, does anyone have suggestions about how to improve this article? AniMate 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Time Magazine's Least Influential People of 2010

The following edit was added by User: Shylocxs concerning Carrie Prejean having made the Time magazine list. It was reverted by User:Johnuniq who claimed it was "gossip". I disagreed and reverted him but was then reverted by User:Tarc, who claimed the edit is "negative WP:BLP" which is NOT true. Time is a highly respectable publication. Whether or not the Time essay is "negative" or "gossip" is not up to us editors to judge but up to our readers to decide on their own by looking at the source. Here's the edit that was removed:

"Listing in Time Magazine's Least Influential People of 2010 In an article published on April 29th, 2010, Prejean was listed as one of the least influential people of 2010, sharing this with such notable figures as the Admiral Luis Aranda, Chief Naval Officer of Bolivia, Bo Obama, Grover, Taipei 101, ex-tallest building in the world, and Floyd Landis. [44]"

I see nothing wrong with this at all. I can't see how this is a WP:BLP violation. I can't see how this is gossip either. Any thoughts? Caden ^cool 03:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Time article is not really notable, though. Its not like its the US News ranking of top college.--Milowent (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying Time is not notable? Caden ^cool 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No. "The Time article."--Milowent (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think was the motivation behind the publishing of a Least Influential People of 2010 article in a magazine? Was it a serious comment on the individuals, or was it just the presentation of a human interest story without much analysis and with zero long-term implications (a pretty good working definition of "gossip")? Is there anything in the magazine that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article? Or do you simply want to make a permanent record of every insult accorded to the subject of a BLP? Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not gossip. It's also not up to us to judge Time magazine's list. Furthermore, do not put words in my mouth. Caden ^cool 04:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is up to us to judge Time magazine's list, just as we judge every day what's encyclopedic and what's not.--Milowent (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The list is an unencyclopedic piece of snark. It's not a real award and it does not seem to have any bearing on people's lives. It's editorial in nature so per RS and BLP it's not usable to establish what it ostensibly says (that she's uninfluential - although the list's real point is a lot more convoluted than that). If receiving the dubious designation affected her in some noteworthy way we could say that, but we'd need a source. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see I've wasted my time. I'm not surprised. Caden ^cool 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be considered noteworthy if Ms. Prejean were listed by Time as one of the Most Influential People of the Year, or made their cover as Person of the Year...so I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned she made their other list of people. Being listed by Time magazine for ANYTHING is a major achievement, when we think of the magazine's history and how many world figures they have to choose from. Codenamemary (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a piece of gossip-y, not-real news. This would be like adding a citation to someone's atricle because they were named inone of those "worst dressed at the red carpet" lists that the E!-type of people love to do every year. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Offered $1,000,000 by adult film company

Wasn't it reported that Prejean turned down a one million dollar offer from Vivid Entertainment to release her sex tape, along with the seven other videos in the series? I'd think that would be worthy of mention, as it's such a large financial figure...and that she refused.Codenamemary (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Vivid made that offer more than once, they do that all the time to celebs, its great marketing for them, but not often very newsworthy.--Milowent (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)