Jump to content

Talk:Carrie Prejean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikhailov Kusserow (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 20 June 2010 (Archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Are you saying Time is not notable? Caden cool 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. "The Time article."--Milowent (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah I see I've wasted my time. I'm not surprised. Caden cool 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because it is a piece of gossip-y, not-real news. This would be like adding a citation to someone's article 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)[reply]
Well, I don't think I've ever succeeded in getting anything I thought was appropriate into a wikipedia article (aside from clarifying what 200 pounds was equal to in today's currency, for Jane Eyre) but I think the whole point here is that Time magazine is not one of those "E!-type of people". It's Time magazine! Codenamemary (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even prominent publications can have off-beat articles or sections. TV Guide had a "Cheers & Jeers" bit once upon a time, but it wouldn't very notable to note in some TV show's article that it was Jeered in, say, issue #250. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did Jane Eyre ever pose for Playboy? That would be noteworthy. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don’t know Jane, she’s an orphan governess who suddenly inherits twenty thousand pounds in 1847. But reading the wikipedia plot summary (or even the book), this doesn’t really clue you in to the fact that she’s become a MILLIONAIRESS by inheriting the equivalent of $2,329,385. Yes, it was none other than Little Me who clarified this for all time…and doing so remains my most significant contribution to society, so far. (Bows head) This is what I bring to the table.Codenamemary (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've noticed there's complaints, though, that the article doesn't mention enough "positive" things about the subject. A mention of this would at least show that she did not want to endorse pornography, (which is something she discusses in detail at the close of her book). If you or I turned down a million dollar offer, wouldn't we consider it noteable in our lives? It seems quite significant, to me.Codenamemary (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Rubbish.--Milowent (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there is nothing wrong with pornography or endorsing it. But I think you got the story wrong. They offered her one million to do a porn with some former Miss USA who does porn flicks now but I forget the chick's name. I'm pretty sure that's how it went. Anyway Miss Prejean said nope to that. Too bad. Caden cool 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If she can turn down a million dollars plus a former Miss USA she is a far better person than I :) - Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I guess I did get that story wrong? I thought there was some talk of the tapes being released, though, and she refused? (PS: I have no problem with pornography, it's just something she rails against at the close of her autobiography.) I just thought mentioning the fact that she refused to sell her tapes would please the commentors here who think the article leans too far toward showing her in a bad light. Whereas having her stand by her "traditional family values" by turning down high-figure porn offers is in keeping with her (written) stance, and would seemingly be something conservative editors would applaud.Codenamemary (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a highly reliable source bothers to publish an article focusing on the issue, we will know that it has reached a level of significance where we could consider mentioning it. Currently, it's just more gossip. It would be WP:OR to comment that the (alleged) refusal of the million dollars indicated the subject's family values, and it would be more OR for me to comment that the million dollar offer is obviously not real: the large amount is just to solicit a headline for promotional purposes. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<< When a highly reliable source bothers to publish an article focusing on the issue.. >> I don't know that there will be more forthcoming :( Unless her engagement goes through a bad breakup and HE starts talking about her. (Interesting that they moved in together before marriage.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carrie_Prejean&oldid=369117099"