Talk:Carrie Prejean/Archive 2

Consensus seems to favor inclusion
Looking over the comments on this page, the consensus seems to be that the Perez Hilton quote should be included. I know one person really, really disagrees with this, but I can't see there being many objections if it is put back in there. AniMate  draw  01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet there will be many objections. I don't think there will be objections from many people. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, so I went ahead and added the quote back in. The objections boggle the mind, since including the quote in no way endorses Hilton's view or states it as fact. AniMate   draw  22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on now, the objections are easy enough to understand - we could have opted to describe Mr. Lavandeira's comments as obscene without using the obscenity and left the full quotes for the page devoted to the controversy. I think Exploding boy made a convincing case for why the actual quote should be included but the opposition does have a case. - Schrandit (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The objections are clearly easy to understand for anyone regarding "bitch" as an obscenity; but imo it is a stretch to consider it one. Bustter (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"You're fired!"
Thus spake The Donald: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And? It's already mentioned in the entry, so what's the point of this section? AniMate   draw  23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To raise the question, now that she's no longer Miss California, is she still notable? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as her firing is being covered by all of the major news organizations and it's rare for beauty queens to lose their crowns in this way, I'm going to go out on a limb and say: "Obviously, yes she is notable still." AniMate   draw  23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Newsworthy and notable are not the same thing. We'll see. Maybe she'll be Sarah Palin's running mate in 2012. Or maybe she'll go back to selling shoes, or whatever it was she did before this brouhaha. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to be 35 to run for VP, right? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's always some catch. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe she could serve as President Palin's press secretary. She's obviously good at handling tough questions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop it guys. This is a forum for improving the article, not for making tongue in cheek remarks about her politics. AniMate  draw  23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or for suggesting it is now a candidate for deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss rationales for deletion, be my guest, but the cute remarks about her future need to stop. AniMate   draw  00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * More like rationales for inclusion. It was argued that she merited an article because she's Miss California. She's not Miss California anymore. Hence, she doesn't merit an article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Winners of beauty pageants don't stop being notable after they no longer hold the title. Her being fired from the organization adds more notability, in my opinion, but feel free to take this to AfD. AniMate   draw  00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a waste, as the votes are already stacked. But it's worth bringing up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. She has become a well-known figure now and losing the crown does not mean the article should be deleted. Showtime2009 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That assumes she was notable in the first place, which is questionable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This section is really petty and pointless. Any reason why it's being allowed to continue? 67.135.49.42 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to Bugs, Prejean is not and never was Miss California. The reigning Miss California is Jackie Geist. Prejean was Miss California USA. Big difference buddy so please do your homework.  Ned  ac  11:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow beauty pageants religiously. But you're making a case for her being even less notable. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, notable doesn't have nearly as much to do with what she actually is, as with "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Since there are about 20 of those listed in the References section, I think you're digging up the wrong carrot patch. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Large media coverage actually has little to do with notability. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Prejean is basically non-notable, though she's arguably more notable than Raquel Beezley and Tami Farrell, 2 other Miss Ca. USAs about whom we have articles. By rights all three articles should be deleted, but I doubt it will ever happen, so we're stuck with them.  The only thing to do is clean them up, make them as streamlined and non-breathlessly adoring as possible, and carry on.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Non-notable and stuck with it" pretty well covers it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that Carrie Prejean lost her notability upon being fired as Miss California USA would be like saying that Vanessa L. Williams lost her notability upon being forced to resign as Miss America. (In fact, Williams' resignation as Miss America and the surrounding circumstances made her more notable than other Miss Americas of her era, even before she achieved success in her singing and acting careers.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well stated. I think someone just has a chip on their shoulder over what Miss Prejean represents and wants to shut her up any way they can.  (Actually, a lot of someones on and off WP obviously want that.) 67.135.49.42 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Playboy
If we are to mention this part of the story it is necessary to have both sides represented. Mrs. Prejean has stated that the head of K2 wanted her to pose for Playboy, while the head of K2 is saying he was just passing along all offers per her email instructions "I expect you to be forwarding me ALL email requests and interview requests to me. I know how you are and its not right if you are selecting things for me." We should state both sides and not one or the other. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why state either side? This is, quite literally, much ado about nothing. She did not pose for Playboy and will not. These arguments about who asked for what when seem to me to be non-notable. The Squicks (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She's a notable public figure, there's no getting away from that. The loss of her crown will continue to fuel her notoriety -- not the same thing as 'notability,' but certainly the chief factor in Prejean's notability has been scandal. Trump says she was fired for behavior, Pejean says she behaved as she did beause they were cheapening her with Plaboy and reality show offers. Trump's people respond that she wantd her offers unfiltered. If Carrie Prejean is notable at all, the controversy is as well.Bustter (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem tags
I have done a quick reading over of the article; I didn't see any problems with its neutrality, issues of "dumb bitch" aside (I only see it quoted once at the moment). It seemed to be a pretty cut-and-dry explanation. As for the other tags, I do not think the quality of the article is any worse than most other articles we have. And of course it's slanted to recent events, she's primarily famous for them. Anyone object if we remove these ugly tags? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remove them. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Magog! I see you made the same type of "ugly looking ... template" argument on the Same-sex marriage talk page.

The Carrie Prejean biography of a living person violates WP:HARM -- heck, most of the content has been added to harm her!

The article also violates WP:BLP, neutrality, WP:Undue weight, WP:Coatrack, WP:Attack page, WP:Quotations, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT.

Disruptive editors inappropriately canvas. That has attracted WP:Meatpuppets (that "may be treated as one entity") to the article that wp:vote, and violate WP:NOT.

A gang member then unilaterally declares "consensus" (to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines). The tag team violates WP:Own and puts and keeps unencyclopedic content in the article via WP:Tendentious editing. It's an effective way of imposing their will on others, and vilification on the article, despite more neutral-minded contributors that have repeatedly written that this violates neutrality, BLP, undue weight, coatrack, etc. The tag team is not discussing those concerns in good faith, and is completely ignoring them when it comes to the editing of the article. It's pretty disgusting to see people's activism amounting to attacking a living person with every derogatory thing that appears in a newspaper somewhere (but not one like the New York Times or Washington Post), gossip website, Google Docs, or on TV! (If enough Wikipedians hate her, we score-settlers can break every rule and make her pay for stating that marriage is something that only a man and a woman do). There is currently both an RfC and a second BLP notice in progress, as you two act as though there's no 800 pound gorilla in the room. The talk page contains a quarter megabyte of acrimonious debate over most of what's in the article. Nothing's been resolved. There's been no clear or unequivocal consensus on anything. The tag team has zero interest in consensus-building. I learned that when I asked, "So we quote [Hilton's] groundless opinion, and then the substantiation that doesn't substantiate it?" TharsHammar replied, two minutes later, "Yup, thats (sic) the way it should work."


 * There is either homosexual/same-sex marriage advocate hatred of Carrie Prejean, or these advocates attack her for political reasons. This may have attracted a Most Interested Person demographic to this article. A Wikipedia biography of a living person is not the place to vilify someone because you hate them, or the opinion they gave -- when asked -- or because you consider her your collective's 'enemy'.

As a whole, it kind of lets us know why many of the people we're discussing this article with are here -- because of Miss Prejean's answer when she was asked about homosexual marriage. They are disproportionately attracted to this page, and merely want -- as a group -- content that makes Prejean look bad in the article. No reasonable person would believe that all these editors -- that are so interested in homosexuality or same-sex marriage -- are here by random chance. And it is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest, given the time of their arrival here, that they are here because Miss Prejean stated that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.
 * It's telling that the three most frequently edited articles by the frequent editors of this talk page are Carrie Prejean, of course, ANI, and Talk:National Organization for Marriage.
 * Exploding Boy has a WikiProject LGBT/Article alert at the top of his talk page.
 * Hoping To Help is one of the biggest contributors to the California Proposition 8 (2008) Talk page.
 * The Squicks' user page states, "This user supports [...] homosexual marriages, and is against any kind of gender restrictions," and "This user supports equal rights for queer people."
 * Baseball Bugs doesn't hide his disdain for Miss Prejean, and takes deliberate jabs at her in his edit summaries
 * Schrandit has a subpage entitled, "Pro-Life_Alliance_of_Gays_and_Lesbians."
 * TharsHammar's written on this page, that "soy makes you gay".
 * Magog the Ogre edits the Same-sex marriage article and the Same-sex unions in the United States template.
 * Dayewalker frequently edits the Same-sex marriage and Marriage articles.

Some editors have tried to put things in the article to 'balance' the article and turn an attack page into a simple coatrack, but the tag team is extremely tendentious, and will rarely part with cherry picked content that slags Prejean. In the tag team's penultimate campaign event, to drive away a productive contributor that doesn't share its POV -- if a predilection for disparagement can even be called a POV -- one administrator wrote, "I think there are serious problems with the article (at least in some of its recent incarnations). Any action on this needs to be considered in the light of the BLP issues." Another administrator wrote, "The article is in piss-poor shape." Nothing's changed -- unless you consider getting worse, "changed". InaMaka obviously hugely thinks there are problems with the article. Caden wrote, "Too many editors are not being neutral whatsoever in regards to Carrie Prejean and are not following Wikipedia policy." The Squicks just wrote, "this article is heavy on material that portrays Prejean in a bad light." That's due to biased editing. John Darrow wrote, "we haven't ever truly established consensus regarding quoting the remarks in the article," so -- since this is a biography of a living person, why are they still in there? I've stated I don't agree with them being there. InaMaka has too. BLP policy states,

If somebody says something hateful, misogynist and untrue about a living person, it shouldn't be in that person's biography. Can someone provide a reliable source that she has a low IQ, or that she's a female dog? The openly homosexual gossip blogger said he was actually thinking the c___ word, so isn't "bitch" the wrong word? According to Hilton, he misspoke. Wouldn't it make more sense to put his own correction into the article, rather than his mistake?
 * Schrandit opposed putting the "dumb bitch" quote in the article.

Breast Implants AniMate wrote, "This strikes me as recentism and sensationalism. We're writing her biography and this is a pretty non-notable event. Imagine it's ten years from now. Will this really be a notable development"? AniMate also wrote, "the implants still aren't exactly notable in the grand scheme of things"? John Darrow wrote, concerning the issue of Carrie Prejean's breast implants appearing in a related article, "singling out Prejean's implants seems calculated to cast a negative light on Prejean, implying e.g. that she is shallow to have implants, [...] the paragraph's presence appears to be a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV." He also wrote, "That the various sources have not investigated state pageant organization support provided to other contestants seems to reinforce the case that the info is only being dug up in order to discredit Prejean. Per 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 is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.' " In the source that TharsHammar supplies at the top of this page, a Miss California USA co-director says, "Breast implants in pageants is not a rarity. It's definitely not taboo. It's very common. Breast implants today among young women today is very common." So not only does the boob job violate WP:BLP -- but it is also unworthy of inclusion, because "breast implants today among young women today [are] very common"! There is neither clear nor unequivocal consensus for the inclusion of the breast implants in this or related articles, yet they are included.
 * InaMaka described the breast implants as unworthy of inclusion, and wrote, "Its only purpose is to make a mountain out of a molehill over something that Prejean did and place her in the worst possible light."

Any that may believe that this is a just cause, that the goal of demeaning Miss Prejean is noble, or that it's achieving something, may want to think again.

Her cherry picked, leaked, personal email violates WP:BLP too.

There's a WP:Content fork for the controversy, but most of the article is made up of the controversy anyway -- and most of that, is negative. BLP policy states:


 * WP:HARM states,


 * WP:HARM states,

The tag team always wins.
 * The tag team unsually restores the content, will edit war -- and regularly tries to focus attention on editors that dare to try to counter them, in vain, with SLAPP suit-style abuses of process, Star Chamber activity and WP:Harassment -- violating WP:Game.
 * The Gaming the system behavioral guideline states,


 * Neutrality in this attack coatrack of a living person hasn't existed since it was created, from a redirect to Deal or No Deal, on April 21st.

The dark arts of spin are practiced in the editing of this article. When you're out to make someone look bad, always describe them as "anti-" something rather than for something. Schrandit replaced Exploding Boy's "anti-same-sex marriage" wording with "a more neutral phrase", but not a more accurate one. The video really highlights the intolerance of homosexual marriage advocates, and states, "gay marriage activists attack people for supporting marriage." Just like we're seeing on this attack page.

Exploding Boy opined, "The only thing to do is" make this article "as [...] non-breathlessly adoring as possible." An attack coatrack makes this article "as [...] non-breathlessly adoring as possible." -- Rico  20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for nothing, Rico. You swoop in, call me a "disruptive editor," accuse others of being meatpuppets and gang members, attempt to claim that various editors are incapable of neutrality because of the articles they edit (something I find most amusing given your own frequent characterization of Perez Hilton as "the homosexual gossip blogger"), and generally achieve nothing but to inflame an already controversial situation and alienate other editors.  If you want to actually help, rather than just making a bad situation worse, stop collecting and marking little tidbits and then jumping in with overly long posts (post so long no one will bother reading them in their entirety) attacking other editors based on completely dubious and inappropriate extrapolations, and address specific, actionable problems in a manner that will enable other users to resond and take action.  Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Exploding Boy, why don't you get off your high horse. You got your way.  You and your associates jammed completely inappropriate comments into the article which violate NPOV and BLP.  Rico has made very, very valid points and you simply do not like the very, very valid comments that Rico made.  There is NOTHING wrong with his posts and his comments are contributing to the discussion.  So get off your high horse and claim way down.--InaMaka (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Squicks' user page states, "This user supports [...] homosexual marriages, and is against any kind of gender restrictions," and "This user supports equal rights for queer people."


 * Goodness, Rico. I named my user after gay porn fetish slang! Google "Squick" and about the first thing you see are two male teenagers ( possibly underage but hopefully not ) in bathing trunks posing next to each other!


 * If you're trying to dig up dirt on people, you should 'at least try harder. The Squicks (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great post Rico, this was a well-written observation of the lack of civility and POV pushing of the politically motivated. John Asfukzenski (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Emails
I'm not sure what including the emails really adds to the article. Prejean has stated that all of the communication between herself and pageant officials hasn't been released. Aside from showing that someone leaked what one would normally consider privileged communication that doesn't make Prejean look particularly good, what is this bringing to the article? AniMate  draw  22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do they add? Explanation into the interaction between Ms. Prejean and the pageant people in the tense final minutes.  Maybe we could condense and go with a shorter quote from them and a summary of the rest, to avoid appearing as if we are relying on a primary source, as covered in RS like the prior Fox N Channel story, or the AP story - but the information contained in those emails adds good context to the article.  Also most organizations have an email policy where anything said in an email between the organization and the employee is property of the organization and free to disclosure. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that as emails one assumes would be private aren't a good source for a BLP. However, since I've gone from an administrator in very good standing to an edit warrior, I'll no longer be editing this article. AniMate   draw  23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * E-mails are inherently private. I agree with AniMate . I don't think this matters in terms of Prejean's life in its entirely, and it steps on the foot of WP:BLP anyway.


 * Regardless, the fact of the matter is that this article is heavy on material that portrays Prejean in a bad light. I would not like to see it bloated further. The Squicks (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting one particular leaked mail from one side of a set of private emails into the article? Bad idea, I think.  Seems like coatracking to me. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a three to one consensus that the emails cross the line and should not be mentioned. The Squicks (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Firing reason
The opening paragraph should be changed. The opening paragraph states the reason Lewis has stated for Carrie's dismissal, however, not the reason Carrie (and many others suspect she was dismissed), namely her answer at the Miss USA pagent and follow-up from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.37.155 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h2k_jaowU7BPFzCx99CyZNL4HIVAD98PDSPG0

can be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.37.155 (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that link proves anything beyond what it says on the page. It proves that that's what she wants people to think.Jabberwockgee (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One could equally say that the reason Keith Lewis gave only proves that that's what he and the other pageant officials (who took exception to her answer) want people to think and they really did fire her for the comment. The knife cuts both ways. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be changed, but Prejean's comments could be added to the paragraph. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the page no longer exists. Jabberwockgee (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Breast Implants (again)
We previously had arrived at a consensus for including the breast implant material in the article about Miss Prejean. What has changed to merit the deletion of this material against prior consensus? Please discuss. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We never arrived at consensus for including this, as the record shows. It was just forced into the article via tendentious editing on the part of Most Interested Persons (like you) that just wanted everything they could find in the media, regardless of how reliable, that slagged Miss Prejean. Prejean said marriage was between a man and a woman and this attack page was born, because of that. Gay/same-sex marriage advocates mayn't use Wikipedia to destroy a living person's reputation, just because they see her as "the enemy."
 * Consensus for including unencyclopedic slags of a living person is necessarily higher than in other articles, but in this case, there never was consensus.
 * There was just TharsHammar and a whole tag team of other Prejean attackers.
 * Not even all the Prejean attacks agreed with you, though. Several didn't.
 * Also, the source you quoted that started this whole thing also stated, "breast implants today among young women today [are] very common". Read WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
 * Incidentally, do we have any source that's more reliable that Shanna Moakler to confirm Miss Prejean's private medical history, because Playmate Moakler never seemed very reliable to me.
 * I don't recall Prejean ever confirming this. Her doctor would lose his right to practice medicine if he were to make public her personal medical business. -- Rico  03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At this moment I don't particularly care whether the information about the breast implants is included or not, though I can't see how it's an invasion of privacy or an attack, since it seems to be public knowledge, and I don't see how it's supposed to be related to the issue of her comments on marriage. In fact, that she received implants paid for by pageant that she then went on to win, a fact made public by one of the pageant officials, seems entirely relevant to the article. In addition, it strikes me as peculiar that you disparage Shanna Moakler by referring to her as "Playmate Moakler" while referring to Prejean as "Miss Prejean."


 * However, RicoCorinth, I think it's time you stop attacking other users and focus your attentions on edits and article content rather than editors. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will you also be chastising TharsHammar for calling me a "POV pusher"?
 * I'll tell you what, you stop inappropriately canvassing, making non-neutral edits, and accusing me of doing things I haven't done. Then you can come back and chastize me some more, even though you seem to chastise me after almost every time I post. -- Rico  03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please correct your statement, I never called you a POV pusher. And so far you are the only one canvassing see   . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)What started this whole thing was Miss Prejean getting her breasts enhanced. And yes, consensus was reached despite the yellings of BLP violation by you, Inamaka, and Caden (who you have now canvassed with this discussion.) You have yet to come up with a cogent reason for why BLP applies to the inclusion of this material.  Do we exclude steroid information from the Manny Ramirez article because of BLP? No, BLP is not a tool for POV pushers to keep unflattering information out of articles. To your latest point what you do or do not recall is not relevant to the factual accuracy of an incident. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 03:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. Sorry. It wasn't just InaMaka, Caden and I. AniMate and John Darrow also opposed it. You need clear consensus to put an unencyclopedic slag into a biography of a living person -- especially when it's an invation of their private medical business, and you didn't have it, and that's "a cogent reason for why BLP applies to the inclusion of this material." -- Rico  03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can read above, and I might be wrong, AniMate came around to inclusion of the material, and even made an edit on the material, coming up with the RS . TharsHammar Bits andPieces 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I note you contacted those people to participate in this discussion. You did not, however, leave a note on my talk page, or on anyone's talk page who you thought would disagree.  This is unacceptable canvassing, known as votestacking.  Additionally, I see nothing in the BLP that would prevent inclusion of the information about the breast implants, assuming it has been reported in reliable 3rd party sources.  Exploding Boy (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * votestacking requires voting. Do you see any !voting? Stop accusing me of doing things I haven't done. I was just about to leave a note on your talk page, but then you were already here. Like lightning. I alway see you and TharsHammar working together when it comes to Carrien Prejean, anyway.
 * You see nothing in the BLP that suggests that we shouldn't include the information about the breast implants. Here, let me help you:


 * -- Rico  03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * AniMate wrote, "This strikes me as recentism and sensationalism. We're writing her biography and this is a pretty non-notable event. Imagine it's ten years from now. Will this really be a notable development"?
 * AniMate also wrote, "the implants still aren't exactly notable in the grand scheme of things"?
 * Are you really going to try to argue that this should be included based on WP:Vote, despite WP:Consensus, and WP:NOT? -- Rico  03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to speak for myself. Three things. 1) I agree with Exploding Boy. This looks like canvassing to me as well. 2) I do not think someone having breast implants is noteworthy and I fully support this factoid being removed. If it is, as pageant officials claim, common for participants to have implants, then it isn't notable. I still fully agree with the statements Rico is quoting. 3)A lot of things are reported in reliable sources. That doesn't necessarily make them compliant or relevant for our BLPs. I'm now going back to ignoring this article. AniMate   draw  03:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Rico, I think you are pushing a POV on this page: whether from a desire to adhere to BLP, because you like her, or for other reasons, you seem determined to present Prejean in the best possible light. While I agree that the BLP is important, the policy specifically disallows this type of editing. What we should be striving for is a neutral article that presents the positive and negative aspects of the subject as reported by reliable 3rd party sources. So far I fail to see how the breast implant information violates BLP, again assuming it has been reported by reliable sources. Could you explain? Exploding Boy (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For someone who doesn't believe editors should be writing about other editors, you sure seem to be writing about me a lot.
 * I'm not "pushing a POV," "determined to present Prejean in the best possible light," because I deleted an unencyclopedic slag that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- and thank you for imputing motives to me based on nothing. The slag doesn't pass the WP:HARM either.
 * Re: "What we should be striving for is a neutral article." Oh, stop. Practice what you preach.
 * People weren't interested in a "neutral" article. They were interested in putting slags in the article, copied from the media firestorm. I don't recall you being too interested in neutrality, beyond writing about it here on this talk page.
 * Almost the whole article is just slags copied from yellow journalism. People tried to mitigate the damage, by adding addendums of other things copied from similar sources to try to defend Prejean from attacks your side kept putting into the article.
 * That left this big WP:Coatrack (WP:Attack page), with barely anything in it about Miss Prejean's career.
 * WP:RS is a necessary condition. It isn't a sufficient condition.
 * Sigh, I'll explain again:


 * For somebody that doesn't care about the inclusion of the slag, you sure are fighting pretty hard for its inclusion.. again.
 * Every time I make a point you ignore it, and write, 'I don't see ...' Let me know when we get to Disruptive. -- Rico  04:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it would really help if you would place your new comments at the bottom. It would also help if you simplified the way you write comments; quote boxes aren't really needed in this instance. Second, I don't see how this particular information is defamatory or damaging to Prejean's reputation, given how common breast augmentation surgery is. Finally, votestacking does not require voting, which almost never happens on Wikipedia anyway; votestacking is an attempt to influence consensus. Additionally, I have asked you multiple times to stop making accusations against other users, particularly your ongoing accusation that TharsHammer and I are engaging in some kind of group editing. I came here because I saw your edit summaries when you removed information from the article and made a comment on this page. And by the way, the edit history shows that you reverted the information from the article at 02:39. My first comment here was at 03:24 (nearly an hour after TharsHammer's), yet you contacted Caden and InaMaka at 02:42 and 02:44. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rico, you keep quoting the BLP, but you're not explaining how or why the information about the breast implants (that is what we're discussing in this section, isn't it?) violates the policy, as I've asked you repeatedly. As far as I can see, the information fails neither WP:INDISCRIMINATE nor WP:HARM. You also don't need to post the exact same quotes twice in this one section.  Exploding Boy (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Given how common breast augmentation surgery is," how does this not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- much less the other policies I've quoted, that you've been unresponsive about? She was a model and a beauty pageant contestant. It's like putting that she was pretty. -- Rico  05:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this seems tedious or pointless to you, but if you want to establish firm consensus on the matter, it needs to be discussed. So let's make it clear and simple.  Without rereading your posts, as I recall you've mentioned WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, BLP and WP:HARM (which is an essay, not a policy).  I think you're interpreting WP:INDISCRIMINATE a little broadly.  The only section this might fall under is #4:News reports, but the information that the pageant that Prejean went on to win paid for her breast augmentation seems quite relevant to the article, and certainly appears to pass the WP:IINFO portion of WP:NOT.  Being that breast augmentation is a legal procedure by your account common to pageant contestants, this information does not appear to violate either BLP or WP:HARM either.  If there are reliable sources that have reported on this, then I can see no reason not to include it.  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "if you want to establish firm consensus on the matter ..."
 * Actually, I would think that you would have to do that.


 * -- Rico  14:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is what the reliable source I added to the article said about her breast implants:
 * “Breast implants in pageants is not a rarity. It’s definitely not taboo. It’s very common. Breast implants today among young women today is very common. I don’t personally have them, but you know — they are,” she added.

I don't think anyone would confuse me with a Prejean fan, but really... this is supposed to be a biography, not a tabloid. Should we mention her waxing habits as well? AniMate  draw  07:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't see a violation of BLP rules if the implant information is included, I would ask WNY is it included? I don't think it's significant or notable.  "Pageant Winner Has Breast Implants", followed by other surprises, like "Sun Rises In East" and "Dog Bites Man".  Unlike the gay marriage controversy, the breast implant story fell into a deep, bottomless well and was never heard from again, except here.  There's no reason to include it. And, Rico, stop the personal attacks, okay?  Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Rico, but I'm aware of the policies. Rather than big, showy quotes from various policies, you need to actually say something about why and how the policies appply.  As of this moment, you haven't demonstrated that including the information about Prejean's breast implants violates any of the policies you've quoted, or the essay at WP:HARM.  I mention this because, although I have no intention of restoring the information, somebody may do so eventually, and when that happens we'll be right back where we are now: with no clear consensus on the matter and no compelling reason to disallow the content.  As for significance or notability, it would seem notable that a pageant had paid for the breast augmentation surgery of a contestant who went on to win that pageant.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "with no clear consensus on the matter and no compelling reason to disallow the content ..."
 * Actually, "no clear consensus on the matter" is a "compelling reason to disallow the content."


 * Some people have selective hearing. I guess selective vision would be the corollary to that. At some point this is going to become a Disruptive.
 * I see you and TharsHammar have abandoned trying to claim consensus, faced with the obvious lack of it.
 * I don't know if you have an incentive to accept that there's a compelling reason to disallow the indiscriminate slag.
 * She didn't "[go] on to win that pageant."
 * -- Rico  18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was in there to make her look fake, of course -- and because Most Interested Persons insisted on its inclusion, probably for that reason, despite a lack of consensus for inclusion of the slag. (She dared to say marriage was between a man and a woman, so she had to be destroyed.) The other side, of course, used that. -- Rico  17:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico: would you please stop being disruptive by posting the same quotes repeatedly in large quote boxes and making personal attacks. You have been asked repeatedly by multiple users to stop this behaviour.

Regarding your claim that "She didn't go on to win that pageant," the sources directly contradict you. The text before you reverted it read (in part): "Prejean returned the following year and won the Miss California USA 2009 title, succeeding Raquel Beezley as California's representative to the Miss USA pageant. She had received breast implants paid for by the Miss California Pageant a few weeks before.

Additionally, "no clear consensus on the matter" means simply that: there is no consensus on whether or not to include the information, suggesting that there's no valid reason to remove it. You removed it "Per WP:BLP," as a "disparaging invasion of living person's privacy," due to there being "No consensus for this on talk page, and "also per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and per WP:Attack page." So far, aside from repeatedly and unnecessarily posting excerpts from them, you haven't shown that any of these applies.  Exploding Boy (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "there is no consensus on whether or not to include the information, suggesting that there's no valid reason to remove it."
 * This claim turns the following policy quotes around 180 degrees:


 * Do you contend that the article is not a biography of a living person?
 * It'd be a lot easier to stop quoting the same policies, if you'd stop arguing the opposite of what they say. -- Rico  18:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should look to other similar pages for guidance. Pamela Anderson mentions that "bleached her brunette hair blonde and enlarged her breasts to 32.5 cm in diameter". Denise Richards says "She admitted to having two breast augmentation surgeries as well as one reduction (which she said she greatly regretted and encouraged other young women not to have done)"  Jenny McCarthy says "In 1993, McCarthy underwent breast augmentation to enhance her look as a model for Playboy. McCarthy had the implants downsized in 1998.".  Honest those are just the first 3 names I searched where I knew they had their breasts worked on, and all 3 mention it to the same degree that we had previously mentioned it in Miss Prejean's article.  Is there something special about Prejean that indicates including this information would be a violation of BLP or would constitute an attack?  No, it is a similar situation and should be dealt with similarly - briefly mention it and move on. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We should look to Wikipedia policies, not "other similar pages" -- unless there is some Wikipedia policy that states that we can violate Wikipedia policies, if we can find similar things elsewhere.
 * There exist other disparaging invasions of the privacy of other living persons in Wikipedia. Wikipedia contains other unencyclopedic content that its policies indicate shouldn't be in it. That's common knowledge.
 * The bottom line is that there is no consensus for this poorly sourced slag, so it mayn't be 'briefly mentioned' in Miss Prejean's attack coatrack of a living person.


 * Editors of this article did explicitly what they were not supposed to do.
 * John Darrow referred to this policy, when opposing inclusion of the boob job. -- Rico  22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then if thats what consensus is then we must follow through with those recommendations that consensus has made and remove all contentious unsourced information for this BLP. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rico, you can go on tendentiously C&Ping the same quotes over and over again ad nauseam, but it's not going to help your case since in 12 posts to this section alone you have still failed to provide one single indication that this information actually violates any of them. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your opinion. -- Rico  04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nov-02-09 reversions
I think it's possible that some of the lawsuit text could be expanded. I think the inclusion of that, plus the blog sourced line about how christianity is viewed is not compliant with our BLP policy. I reverted, but i'm not going to continue reverting. This needs to be worked out here, or outside intervention may be needed.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * An attack on Prejean from a .blogspot. website is not a reliable source by any means. As per WP:BLP, it's addition can be reverted as many times as necessary. The Squicks (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've posted here Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard asking for admin attention.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection
I have placed this article under full protection for a week. Please sort out the content disputes during that time. If the edit warring should continue after the protection expires, I have every reason to believe the article will be protected again, probably for a longer time. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

About The Implants
There is one issue which has triggered the full protection of this article : at what level should Prejean's breast implants be covered? There seem to be three different approaches. Of course, I advocate #2 -- it shold be mentioned only where needed to explain other events in passing. I think that not mentioning it at all is wrong, and the reasons for not mentioning it are incorrect. We do not have access to any of Prejean's medical records, amd we can't violate the confidentiality of records we don't have. What we do have is public statements, referenced, by the pageant committee that they loaned Prejean the money for breast implants, and that as part of the counterclaims to the lawsuit, they want that money back. It's public information now, no confidentiality violation involved, and just stating that there was a loan without saying what the loan was for (which is mentioned prominently in the reference about the counterclaims) is burying part of the story. I also think that mentioning it at the level that Filthyfix wishes is ridiculous. It's hardly news these days that any national-level beauty pageant contestant has had plastic surgery, including implants, and the "controversy' is solely over the alleged loan -- nobody outside of a few unreliable blogs seems worked up about it to raise it to the level of controversy that should be noticed in a Wikipedia article. Repeating the same thing three times in the article is definitely undue weight. Anyway, that's my view. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not mention at all -- Prejean's implants are a private issue, and mny mention of them is a violation of the confidentiality of Prejean's medical records. Example proponent : User:RicoCorinth.
 * 2) Mention in passing when required to explain other events -- Prejean's implants are not a story in and of themselves, but are a necessary detail of the Miss California USA committee's counterclaims to Prejean's lawsuit against them, one of said counterclaims being the return of money allegedly advanced to Prejean for said implants. Example proponent : myself.
 * 3) Mention prominently -- Prejean's implants are a significant part of and a major controversy in Prejean's life, and should be covered in the lede and in a separate section, and is the primary reason for the lawsuit, requiring that the lawsuit section be named after the implant issue. Example proponent : User:Filthyfix.
 * Considering the matter is currently the subject of two pending lawsuits, I have to believe that it should be referenced, as relevant to the lawsuit, but that we should make only passing reference. There are privacy concerns, which I believe reasonable, but the matter is the subject of a lawsuit, which I believe makes it significant enough to be mentioned, if only mentioned, in the article. Upon the resolution of the lawsuit, the amount of weight given the material might change, depending on the outcome. However, at least based on the current content of the article, the subject herself has made no public statements regarding the subject, and until such time, if any, such statement is made I have to believe that passing mention is probably all that BLP would allow in this article. Actually, considering the matter is currently the subject of several lawsuits, I would myself only say something to the effect that the subject and the pageant have filed suit against each other regarding alleged misconduct of both sides, and reserve any stronger statements until after each side in the dispute makes direct, unambiguous statements which could be included. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably #2 as someone happening across this debate. #1 denies actual frequent press coverage of prejeans' assets.--Milowent (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a message at WP:BLPN regarding this discussion. My one concern is we do not in any way want the article to be seen as appearing to make a statement relevant to the potential court findings before all the parties to the case have themselves made clear statements regarding the matter. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From BLP/N. I agree that the second option is the best.  After giving the article a quick read, it seems that the loan for the implants should be mentioned as part of the suit in the appropriate location, but anything more is just contributing to FilthyFix's attempt to manufacture controversy where there isn't one. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 2 makes sense, but- and this must be reiterated- any comments about Prejean that are either unsourced or poorly sourced (such as from a .blogspot. website) must be kept out of this article to preserve WP:BLP. The Squicks (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sex tape
Numerous news outlets are reporting that there is a Carrie Prejean sex tape, and it played a role in her getting no money from her settlement. This should be added to the article. WeTe67 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Contra Costa Times story references TMZ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/04/carrie-prejean-sex-tape-settlement-miss-california-usa-pagneat/), and TMZ also has a story about a supposed settlement of the lawsuits (http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/04/carrie-prejean-like-kissing-your-sister/). However, I really don't think TMZ is a reliable source for BLPs. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it is all over the place and apparently she has droped the lawsuit. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=927273 Aussie version. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably should go in the main article, but we should have more information on Mrs. Prejean's solo career audition. Was this solo performance a pre or post enhancement rendition?  That would indicate a general time line in relation to the Miss Cali contest. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The sex tape story appears be "all over the place"" -- but it's not really all over the place. Every story I've found is referencing TMZ's claims about the sex tape, so there really only one source, TMZ, and that is questionable. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, i checked to see if this article had been edit-warred overnight, but it appears to have been protected on Nov 2 for a week. Probably for the best.  I agree that TMZ appears to be the source for all the sex tape stories, and TMZ is relying on anonymous sources.  It does no real harm to let this issue lie for a few days, though the actual fact of settlement of the lawsuits has been reported more broadly and could be included now.--Milowent (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it looks like at least CNN independently checked the sources. --Milowent (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I is da gi hoo protekted paig. U wantz sumthing adedd, yuz templait and sa what youz wantz adedd. Simpul. I not unresunabl, but mi speling not so gud. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, CNN has confirmed the sex tape with a legal figure who's seen the settlement. SEE: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/04/miss.california.usa.settlement/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs)


 * TMZ reported it, CNN independently confirmed it, and now E! independently confirmed it. E! reports: "The tape actually began making the rounds several months ago and was offered as an exclusive to various websites for the bargain-basement price of $10,000." Thus, this should be included with settlement that Prejean received nothing other than attorney fees. C56C (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The CNN story does not say that a legal source confirmed any of this -- is refers to an anonymous source who has seen the legal agreement. Anything we say is going to have to be along the lines of
 * A confidential settlement has been reached
 * CNN says an anonymous source claims a sex tape was involved in the settlement, and that Prejean only received legal expenses and the right to release her book unhindered by legal encumbrances.
 * This is going to have to be written especially carefully to stay within the boundaries of BLP and verifibility. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing - CNN just reports on an unnamed source and I don't know if E(!) is a legit source. Give it some time. - Schrandit (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the page is protected for a few days more anyway, so we have time to wait. We don't need to report on news as it happens here, so let's wait for a bit more information and think about it then. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<< Give it some time >> Jimminy Christmas, HOW???????? I am so distracted at work right now. No one cares about my sex-tape-scandal updates here in the office. (Okay, I know this is off-topic) Codenamemary-Who-Doesn't-Know-How-To-Sign-Posts-And-Isn't-Trying-To-Stay-Annonymous.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Added settlement and "sex-tape" info. Since the media is calling it that, I kept that term, but I felt it was important that the article makes clear that this isn't an "intercourse" tape, hence the final descriptive sentence of the addition. If we condense or eliminate the description, the term "sex-tape" needs to change, to something more neutrally accurate, though nothing springs to mind. Studerby (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that addition seems concise and appropriate, to me. CodeNameMary 69.198.205.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Child Pornography
Since Ms. Prejean says she made the tape when she was 17 and it shows her genital region as she is engaging in sexual activity, it meets the definition of child pornography under U.S. federal law. She has admitted to producing and distributing the video. This is a rather damaging admission if it is true and seems significant enough to include. How should it be handled? Luitgard (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Added legal opinion from credible source on the question of whether Prejean's creation & distribution of the video violates child porn laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luitgard (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw Prejean on Hannity and she said she was a teenager, she did NOT say she was underage. EDIT:  Oh, i see there is a source saying she said she was 17.--Milowent (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As she said of one of the sets of topless photos taken of her, she said the video was made when she was 17. That makes it illegal to posses, view or distribute, which works to Prejean's advantage, but it also makes her creation and dissemination of it a federal felony, and that is surely note worthy. Luitgard (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the source for this, the Sentencing Law and Policy blog, is expressly using the case as an example of something which might technically be in breach of the law rather than as something which is likely to be pursued or which is routinely followed up. It seems to me to be an interesting point about the law but of limited relevence to the subject of the article. It would be like stating in every article about a celebrity who had admitted taking drigs that they could technically be charged with possession.--94.194.181.190 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone, say for example Obama, admitted to using drugs, it would reflect on his or her character and would be included in any reasonably complete discussion of their behavior, as it is in the Obama article. The difference is that while everyone knows that drug use is criminal, not everyone realizes that sexting is a federal felony.  The legal ramifications of her admision have not yet been felt or fully explored, but very serious charges have been brought against young women who have sent far less explicit photos and videos than the one Prejean sent by cell phone.   Editing the text might make sense.  Completely deleting it seems like it might be POV biased. I'm reverting, but please consider making constructive edits, and creating a Wikipedia user ID. Luitgard (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Carrie is an idiot, but I agree with 94.194.181.190, its more of a hypothetical now than anything else that she'd be charged for distributing a sex tape. If more mainstream sources start reporting that she may be charged, ok, then.--Milowent (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the argument below. Thanks! Luitgard (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Wikipedia is to serve the public interest. That interest is served in this case by making sure the public knows that "sexting" a self made, under aged, explicit masturbation video is a criminal act that can have extremely negative consequences. I'm not saying Ms. Prejean should be charged, and many people feel that the criminal charging of under aged who film themselves in sexual actions or context is wrong, but it is a fact of U.S. law and serves the public interest to share this. Luitgard (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of wikipedia is to be an online encyclopedia. it doesn't tell us to lower our cholesterol in every article having to do with meat products.  it doesn't reference every time any public figure smoked pot or snorted coke and then say "president bush could have been arrested for this behavior."--Milowent (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I wrote, the illegality of drug use is well know. The EXTREMELY damaging possible consequences of making such a sex video are not.  This is probably the best known example of a self made, graphically sexual, underage video. It is far more graphic than many cases that have been prosecuted and the maker is far more famous than any other I know of.  Not all mention of such behavior need be so referenced, but it serves a valid and pressing informational purpose that the best known case be so labelled. Luitgard (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The "child porn" aspect was discussed today on Slog by Dan Savage and on the Joy Behar Show by Joy Behar and her guests. It was mentioned that teenagers have been charged under child porn laws for possessing nude photos/videos of themselves and for disseminating them.  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was also discussed on 4chan, no doubt. It still seems like idle legal chatter to me at this point, but that's just my suggestion.--Milowent (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Exploding Boy. Please get a citation on the Joy Behar Show if you can. Milowent, see above.  Also consider that the ever growing number of Google hits for the phrase pair "Carrie Prejean" & "child porn" and its permutations shows noteworthiness.  Luitgard (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As of 5 minutes ago, a Google search for "Carrie Prejean" & "child porn" gave about 1,060,000 hits. Noteworthy and maybe enough to justify a separate article.Luitgard (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 precedents I can think of that make me believe the inclusion is unnecessary.

Firstly as I said earlier when a celebrity admits taking drugs, such as Whitney Houston admitting having taken Crack Cocaine on Oprah recently, there is no mention of the five year federal minimum jail sentence for the possession of crack in the Wikipedia article.

Secondly in previous cases where sexual images of celebrities taken before their 18th birthday have appeared, the wikipedia article doesn't mention the possibility of it being child pornography, I'm thinking of the naked images of Vanessa Hudgens for example which whilst probably less graphic than the Prejean tape could also technically be considered child pornography.

Thirdly no mention of the child pornography angle is made in the articles of other people who have also been handling the Prejean tape without informing the authorities- such as Miss Universe, Donald Trump and TMZ. --94.194.181.190 (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. 1st, while it may not be widely know that there is a 5 year federal minimum for crack, it's illegality and potential for harm are widely known. 2nd in the case of Vanessa Hudgens, since there was no sexual activity or emphasis on the genital region, her nude photos possibly were not illegal. See, for example, the works of Jock Sturges & Sally Man.  Third, an informed mention of the fact that TMZ might have to destroy their copy of the video might be well-advised, but as they were not aware that she was under aged when it was made, they would not be as culpable as the manufacturer/distributer, Ms. Prejean.  Same for the Miss California legal staff.  Both may also assert that they doubt Miss Prejean's claim that she was 17, as it would serve her purpose to remove the video from circulation, and she seemingly lied about her age when the topless photos were taken, even though those would not be covered by CP laws. Carrie is in a difficult situation here.  If she was under aged, she would be guilty of breaking the child porn laws.  If she wasn't, the video may be viewed by the wider U.S. public.  Her phone records would be the best evidence on the matter.  It could be argued the topic really merits its own article, as people are so misinformed about it. It is a very widely discussed, but very poorly understood matter. (Again, please consider getting a Wikipedia ID.  :) Luitgard (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone does create a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article, I will enjoy the drama around the the immediate AfD. But seriously, no matter how extensive the coverage of the sex tape, it should be in the Carrie Prejean entry.  Here's some of the more recent coverage: CBS/AP (Nov. 10, no mention of illegality, but does say she claims to have made it when she was 17--which means prior to May 13, 2004--I do wonder about the feasibility of her doing this in early 2004, though its certainly possible.), eonline (Nov. 11, speculates that take was purposefully leaked to coincide with prejean's book release), Today/MSNBC (Nov. 10 - OK This one does mention it -- "Prejean admitted that making the video of herself and sending it — an act that other teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for doing").  I suppose that last one supports a mention of it in the article without going crazy.--Milowent (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I revised section and added Today/MSNBC article.--Milowent (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Big thanks to you Milowent, great objective research. And yes, I fear there will likely be a dust up if someone creates a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Controversy article.  (As the controversy includes her photos in the public's mind, I would suggest the alternate, broader title to address both in the same article.)  So are you going to create it, or am I? ;-)  FWIW, I  feel sympathy for Prejean, but the issues involved have become bigger than her. Luitgard (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. You know, this is not on-topic since its original research minded, but i am very skeptical of this claim that she was 17 when the tape was made.  TMZ reported on nov 5 that when the video was shown to her, " Carrie's first reaction was "that's disgusting" ... and Carrie denied it was her....the camera angle changed ... and panned up to her face. She was caught red-handed ... so to speak" - If that report is true (and this is TMZ here, i realize) then she was not likely alone when she filmed it.  We'll see if the press investigates this, though i doubt they will.--Milowent (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I fear you may be correct about her being wrong on the date she created the video, as she made a mistake in the past on the date of her topless photos, at least according to documentation provided by the photographer involved. The possibility that she is being dishonest to supress embarrassing past indiscretions does suggest itself, but in this case such a deception could result in a criminal investigation that will either further erode her credibility and/or result in criminal charges and her being labelled as a sex offender.  Creating a trial/test article and seeking input for the Carrie Prejean Child Porn Controversy article seems in order.  I'll try and work on that this evening if no one beats me to it.  Luitgard (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was editing as -94.194.181.190 before. The current revision seems about right. --Number79 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard number79! Hope you stick with us as we'll need diverse input. The new page will likely start a fight. ;-p Luitgard (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I created a personal trial page for "Carrie Prejean Child Porn Controversy" here so we can polish it and work out issues with moderators before we go live with it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luitgard/Carrie_Prejean_Child_Porn_Controversy. If any of you are brave enough to create the page directly, go for it and I'll try to help, but beware unless you done something that controversial before! I'll try to add content this evening to the trial page. Luitgard (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Its still at the TMZ stage, but the child porn section should wither. The Ex says she wasn't underage and it sounds completely legit and verifiable (though his identify is being kept hidden at this point). --Milowent (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Milowent. I updated the article to reflect that.  As you suspected, the "child porn" issue seems to be something that exists only because of poor Ms. Prejean's desperate attempts to suppress the seemingly large supply of erotic visual materials she made when she was of fully legal age.  That so much of the press and her supporters accepted her misrepresentations so readily does not speak well of them.  That she tried to get the recipient of the video(s)to support her story, thereby implicating both of them in a number of federal and state felonies, makes me question her judgement and arguably her sanity as well.  She's beginning to seem somewhat dangerous and must not be consulting qualified legal counsel. Luitgard (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, she'll probably destroy the Constitution next.--Milowent (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If masturbation could destroy the Constitution or anything else, the world would be toast by now. :)  By dangerous, I mean mainly to herself or anyone closer to her.  I do wonder who she's dating now, but it's Friday Night & time for us to do a bit of dating ourselves.  Luitgard (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

sex tape law suite (note: irrelevant commentary)
If someone took illegal tapes of your nudity. It is a disgrace of your person charator. What a person does in in private is there business and no one else. If a person spies on a person for the picture there know as pepping-toms(illegal). If the tape are used to control someone it is blackmail(illegal). if the pictures are shown without the person permission it porn rape(illegal). Porn rape is like forcing someone to do something against there will. Any picture that is used against the person will is lyable to a law suit base on the person damage to there life style(upper to lower). And this is a life time settlement because the damage will be around for many years and your lifestyle needs to be covered for life. And in your case it is in the mulltie millions on each person using the pictures to destroy your life. If you like sex with someone it is between you them or alone and no one has the right to watch unless you permit them them. And if the person you had sex with made pictures and used it against your will he is guilty of porn rape. If you have a itch and need to work it out. It is your business in your private living zone area that no one is allowed to be to enjoy time alone. If they use small print to get away with it. This is something the courts call impermisable. Because all writing should be in plain sight for the person to understand. or hacked into a area on the contract after you read it. this is fraud (illegal).this personson are looking at 10 to 15 years when you added it up on top of the law suite. This may be a gay attact against you for not wanting anything to do with there life style.have a nice day.Marcel Steve Joseph Rossignol/MSJR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.5.67 (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are wikipedia ediors, not legal judges in some posh law suite or the judges of Carrie's soul.--Milowent (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What you don't understand I did work for the supreme courts of NJ for courts understanding illegal action against someone. And this is a issue that needs to be understood of someone rights. and not to be a sex victom.and if you question my skills them you are more then welcome to go to NJlaw web sight of lawyer talking court cases and help people with there cases. and see for your self if i'm not as good as a lawyer.they know me as "pepeelapu" on the sight.MSJR
 * Hey MSJR, we aren't questioning your good word, its just not very relevant to what wikipedia says, as we'll only cover what the reliable sources in the press say about this. The rumor i've heard is that a boyfriend made this tape, and its a "solo" performance of her.  Whether she knew it was taken or not, I have no idea.  Will this guy ever be caught and prosecuted? I tend to doubt it, but the Prejean story just keeps going like the energizer bunny, so who knows.--Milowent (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

yes i understand, i just wanted her to know i know what she going throw because as a child i was rape by child millester and lied about being gay which i have nothing do with and was porn raped and sexually abused most of my life by people like this kinds of people that get away with this things against peoples will. sometime it's for control of someone life.MSJR

More on the tape
Is this a sex tape? I'm the wrong person to ask, but if she isn't having sex with any one was it a sex tape? Also, with this level of vandalism why in all creation isn't this page protected? - Schrandit (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was recently protected, I think, that must have expired. I don't know if its a "sex tape", its sounds more like a tape of her nude with suggestions that she was masturbating in it.  So, Bill Clinton would probably say its not.--Milowent (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's correct to refer to it as a sex tape. Footage of a woman sexually gratifying herself would be stocked in the Adults Only area of a video store. If the footage were spliced into a movie, the film would be labelled as having sexual content. CodeNameMary (who still doesn't know how to sign her posts the official way.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

larry king
she took her mic off after a caller identified himself as gay. that fact is missing from the article and it's an important one. just watch the video. larry asking her about her settlement irritated her but she lost it when the gay caller came on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the scheme of everything, its not terribly important. i saw the clip, its classic drama, but probably not of lasting importance.--Milowent (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * my point is if we cover it in the article we should describe what actually took place. the way it reads now leads the reader to believe she shut down only because of larry's questions which is not true.  she lost it over a gay caller.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess, but why should it be covered at all? - Schrandit (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * because every neww source in north american is covering this and it's directly related to what makes her notable in the first place? and as far as trivia goes, has anyone EVER taken their mic off during a larry king interview and refused to finish the interview?  this is a significant event.


 * 1 - That is a slight exageration, 2 - I don't see how that is makes the interview in and of itself notable, 3 - we don't cover trivia. - Schrandit (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

google carrie prejean larry king and tell me what you get. this is huge celebrity news, the LA Times, NY Times, NY Daily, Detroit Free Press, heck even the Dallas Morning News has covered it not to mention every single celebrity blog/site out there. yeah it is stupid news but it's a stupid subject to begin with. we should not leave important developments out of the article and taking off your mic on national tv, on the larry king show is pretty dang noteworthy. look at the mainstream media's coverage, THEY all think it's highly noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Celebrity is the operative word in celebrity news. Prejean's answer as the 2009 Pagent caused national debate and got her fired.  A woman taking off an microphone at one point in an interview seems trivial at best. - Schrandit (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "she took her mic off after a caller identified himself as gay", well no she took it off after she received a caller, when she had agreed with the producers not to take any calls. Phrasing it as though the caller being gay was the trigger is speculative and patently unencyclopedic unless there is any evidence to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number79 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a great many stories about her conduct in this interview, certainly more than enough for WP:WEIGHT to dictate its mention in this article. This has gone considerably beyond typical "E! News" celebrity gossip. WP:WEIGHT indicates that it should be mentioned, because a significant number of reliable sources are reporting on it. — Mike : tlk  18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if its all over the place, I'm not stopping anyone from putting it in the article. In the long run it doesn't seem that notable, though.--Milowent (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times is reporting Larry King's producer says there was NO agreement to not take live calls nor was there an agreement to not discuss the settlement. So, according to yet another source, carrie is a serial liar or possibly the entire world is in cahoots to get her. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/11/carrie-prejean-accuses-larry-king-of-being-inapproprate-and-then-fails-to-walk-off-his-set.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From the LATimes article you linked:

"And then after the commercial break -- which you don't see on the clip that hit cyberspace last night -- Prejean is still in her seat. She didn't go anywhere. There was still her new book, "Still Standing" to promote. So she forgave King for his other violation -- Prejean's publicist had set some rules: no phone calls and King had turned to his phone lines when she refused to answer his "inappropriate" questions.

The air was cleared, King apologized saying his producers didn't warn him of the no-calls rules, and King got to the new matter at hand: Prejean's future."

At least, READ your own links. It is King and the media who are lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.121.144 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

<< yeah it is stupid news but it's a stupid subject to begin with. >> I hope I'm not taking your quote out of context, Unsigned, but this situation seems to me to be swirling around a vitally IMPORTANT issue: the separation of church and state. CodeNameMary

vandalism
some of the vandalism of this article is hilarious! but please stop vandalizing the article you article vandals you! maybe it should be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, any passing admin might consider PROTECTING the article to some extent because its getting a bit out of hand.--Milowent (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, this is the first time I figured out how to request protection, and the page is now semi-protected for 3 months, which means it can be edited, but not by unregistered users. IP editors can discuss edits on this page though.--Milowent (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of hilarity you simply MUST read the carrie prejean page at conservapedia. read the talk page too. http://conservapedia.com/Carrie_Prejean

Official Website
Please put up my Official Website: www.officialcarrieprejeanwebsite.com
 * I will add the link Carrie, it seems harmless enough.--Milowent (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Obviously I can't confirm that request was from the real Carrie Prejean, but some things just make sense.)--Milowent (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

how do you know this is really her official website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

did you even look at that web site? I bet you cash money that is not her web site. just because someone puts "official" in a domain name does not mean it's their official site. you should pull that link until you can confirm it is really her site. man someone is pulling your leg and you're falling for it. go look at the site, there is not any evidence that it is her site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since we aren't sure and I can't verify it by googling the URL, I'll remove it for now.--Milowent (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

More photos, more videos
According to this widely reproduced article, several more videos and nude photos have emerged. Nothing verifiable yet, but look out for the onslaught. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

McAusland?
From the wikipedia article: "Reportedly before the interview, Prejean threatened to walkout. Prejean said to CNN news assistant Christina McAusland, "You tell Larry if he's not nice to me, I will get up and leave." Following the interview, Prejean accused the staffer of lying to her, saying King's producers promised no phone calls. '''"Is the intern talking to me? Oh look at the little intern, look at the little intern trying to explain!"[38]

"I've never been treated so poorly in my whole life," McAusland said.'''"

This seems to be an unnecessary piece of information, placed to portray Prejean negatively. How is this notable? How do we know that the irrelevant CNN staffer is telling the truth? Because she said so? I really think the bolded really needs to be deleted; it adds nothing to the elaborate on the King incident, and is arbitrarily included only to make Prejean look like an asshat. Novalord2 07:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalord2 (talk • contribs)

Ah that bold stuff is really important: Without it, I had no idea Ms. Prejean was a complete mean spirited idiot until I read that. I think you should leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattaudio (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Larry King Interview
What should matter to Wikipedia's editors of the Carrie Prejean article is the accuracy of Trump's statements as reported by CNN in the article by Lisa Respers France(11/12/09) about what Trump thinks Ms. Prejean said in the interview and what was actually said. When the two sources are compared (the CNN transcript of Larry King Live and CNN article by Lisa Respers France cited in the Wikipedia article) it is clear that there is a contraction of facts between what was said [by Prejean] in the interview and Trump's opinion and what he wants the public to think Prejean said in the interview. It's my opinion that reporting Trump's innuendo concerning Prejean's choice of the word "inappropriate" during the interview is in poor taste and doesn't belong in the article and should be removed. The word is commonly heard in interviews when an interviewee declines to answer a question or discuss a topic. It is worth noting that the word was used earlier in the same program [Larry King Live] by Col. John Galligan, Major Hasan's Civilian Attorney when he declined to answer one of Larry King's question and no one (including Mr. King) was surprised by it or that it suggests something sexual.

One of the stated purposes of a Wikipedia talk page is "comparing contradictory facts from different sources" which is the primary focus of my post (11/16/09). Clearly there is a contradiction of facts between what Prejean actually said to Larry King in the interview and what Trump wants uninformed readers to think she said and his attempt to influence (negatively) public opinion of Prejean. According to the CNN transcript, Prejean said "Larry, everything that was discussed in mediation -- I'll say it again -- is completely confidential. I'm not going to be able to talk about that." Larry tried again to get Prejean to talk about the settlement, and again, Prejean clearly stated that she can't answer the question which is exactly what Trump suggested she say. She couldn't have been clearer in the interview: "It's a confidential agreement and I'm not allowed to talk about that." If the CNN transcript of the interview is included in the Wikipedia article, then readers can determine for themselves whether Prejean said she can't answer Larry King's question, or whether she wanted to exit the interview.Hankelow (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if I am not a fan of rightist "Christian" Ms Carrie Prejean - I am rather quite the opposite: The section about the Larry King Interview is all through biased and considers only Anti-Prejean statements, what makes this article sad and also make sometimes the state of wikipedia sad. --119.94.202.249 (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure why we have a Larry King section, this woman has done dozens if not hundreds of television interviews. - Schrandit (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree that the Larry King Interview section seems unbalanced toward condemning Prejean and should perhaps be revised or removed. However, Ms. Prejean has developed a credibility issue that should probably be addressed in as fair and neutral a fashion as possible.  I'll create a separate discussion section for that topic. Luitgard (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this passage with its quote are prejudicial, "Keith Lewis, executive director of Miss California USA and Miss California Teen USA, also released a statement on the interview. '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.'" At the very least, I'd like to paraphrase it to be a little more neutral. Thoughts? Luitgard (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Larry King incident is probably the most notable of any she's ever given, save the "interview" during the pageant that started all this. It has certainly been the most widely covered in secondary sourcing. Regarding the Lewis quote, I can't support paraphrasing quotes of others in Wikipedia articles (especially if the purpose is to soften the meaning). The proper thing to do, I think, is to also balance it with sourced coverage of the other side of the coin (Vis-à-vis her statements on the subject(s)). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the way to deal with a profoundly negative, very subjective quote is to include an equally biased positive one. I have not hesitated to include damning factual material in this article.  A lot of the info on her sex tape and related material was written and documented by me. But having created and worked extensively on the article on spammer and spin master Greg Tseng myself, I have some idea what's POV and what's not.  Use of a long, very critical quote that makes no attempt at balance is not the way to achieve objectivity. Facts are preferable to opinions. Luitgard (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What other interviews has she done besides Larry King? She had a promotional chat with Sean Hannitty a few times and Greta Van Susternenenen allowed Miss Prejean to pitch her side of the story, besides King this former beauty queen has done no other interviews since her loss in the Miss USA pageant.  TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * She was on The View, during which the co-hosts seemed largely unsympathetic to her, and after which Whoopie Goldberg described her (on a subsequent episode of The View) as bitchy. But I do agree that the Larry King interview is notable, since it has been very widely reported. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, it was reported that "Donald Trump was puzzled by Prejean's interaction with King. 'Inappropriate' is more of a sexual term, as far as I'm concerned, Trump said." The same Wikipedia article reports that Trump also said, "why didn't she just say, hey listen, I can't answer that question." If the Wikipedia editors will read the transcript of the interview broadcast on 11/11/09 between Larry King and Carrie Prejean, they will find that Ms. Prejean said exactly what Trump suggested she say and she said it not one time, but seven times (count them: CNN Larry King Live (Aired November 11, 2009 - 21:00 ET) Transcript of the interview with Fort Hood Hero Cops; David Letterman vs. Joe Halderman; Interview With Carrie Prejean) before she told Larry King that "he" (not the question) was being inappropriate and clearly he was. She never said--and again the Wikipedia article inaccurately reports that Trump accused Ms. Prejean of saying--(Read the CNN transcript: "Larry, you're being inappropriate.") that the question was inappropriate.

The really ironic thing in this is that earlier in the same Larry King Live program, King had a short interview with Col. John Galligan (RET.), Major Hasan's Civilian Attorney, King asked Galligan "Have you -- is -- we've heard reports that he's paralyzed. Is that true?" to which Galligan answered, "Larry, with respect to all of the reports that are being made about his medical condition, whether it's medical, mental or physical, I prefer not to address that at this time. I respect fully the hospital and patient privacy rights of patients and my client. And I just think this would not be an appropriate time to make any comment on that." In other words, Larry, sorry, but not an appropriate question at this time, next question please. Larry King said "OK" and "I understand."

So why is it okay for one guest on Larry King to decline to comment and Larry accepts that and moves on to a different question and not for another? Could Ms. Prejean be correct in her assertion that there is a double standard when it comes to how the liberal media treats women who hold conservative views?Hankelow (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the previous post is inappropriate for this page, which is for discussing the article rather than the subject. Possibly you could take it to one of the discussion sites covering this topic.  Exploding Boy (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Who cares what Donald Trump thinks? - Schrandit (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to Carrie Prejean, Trump's remarks are notable because he is the owner of the pageant she was competing in, he spoke in support of her several times, and now appears to have withdrawn that support. If we're going to mention him at all in this article, which I think we should, then we need to have all his relevant comments, not just the supportive ones.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)