Talk:Miss USA 2009

Here is the Spanish article of Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, for those who want to translate it. I just dont have time.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fired!!
Donald Trump finally fired Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, over repeated contract violations.

ABC NEWS, June 10, 2009

There will be no more second chances for former Miss California Carrie Prejean. The Miss USA runner-up has officially been fired, this time with the blessing of pageant owner Donald Trump.

Miss California pageant officials said Wednesday that Prejean was fired because of continued breach of contract issues.

“This was a decision based solely on contract violations including Ms. Prejean’s unwillingness to make appearances on behalf of the Miss California USA organization,” executive director Keith Lewis said in a statement sent to ABCNews.com. “After our press conference in New York we had hoped we would be able to forge a better working relationship. However, since that time it has become abundantly clear that Carrie is unwilling to fulfill her obligations under our contract and work together.”

Even Trump, the real estate mogul who co-owns the Miss USA organization and saved Prejean from losing her crown last month, did not stand in the way this time.

“I told Carrie she needed to get back to work and honor her contract with the Miss California USA Organization and I gave her the opportunity to do so,” Trump said in the statement. “Unfortunately it just doesn’t look like it is going to happen and I offered Keith my full support in making this decision. Carrie is a beautiful young woman and I wish her well as she pursues her other interests.”

Prejean’s representative did not respond immediately to requests for comment from ABCNews.com.

Miss California runner-up Tami Farrell will immediately take over the crown and Prejean’s responsibilities as Miss California. The current Miss USA Kristen Dalton and Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza will also lend a hand in making appearances.

Editor’s note: It is expected that the 2nd runner-up at Miss USA 2009, Alicia Monique Blanco of Arizona, steps up to 1st runner-up status, giving her a chance to become Miss USA if Kristen Dalton wins the Miss Universe pageant next August. --MASWJ (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So what were the contract violations and what were Ms. Prejean's reasons for being unwilling to make appearances on behalf of Miss California USA Organization? Where can I find that info?  Were there post-contractual changes/additions due to the notoriety of her answer to the controversial question? Hard to condemn/judge this situation w/out knowing some background info. Brainchild7 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on Final scores
In this article of AP it is clearly said "Because the contestant's scores are supposed to be kept secret, it may never be known whether Prejean would have won had she not drawn Hilton's question." So what is the source of the final scores in this page? I would like to mark it source requested. BTW, I don't think "homophobic" is NPOV here. CnWei (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Miss CA homophobic comments?
This needs to be added to the article. Now. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/19/entertainment/e110634D17.DTL --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Must every minutia of detail be added to EVERY Wiki page? Is it really that important?  Seriously, would you find this in an encyclopaedia?  Anyone else agree with me?Dryamaka (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this have anything to do with the topic of the article? It doesn't.  Save it for an article on homophobia.Dryamaka (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It occured in the telecast. THAT is how its relevant. You didn't see it? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw it. Still doesn't make it worth putting in the article.  If we had a comment for each and every of the 51 contestants, the article would obviously be too wordy.  Remember, this isn't a play-by-play of the telecast here.  Save it. Dryamaka (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's received substantial coverage, commanding a non-trivial part of many articles about the event, not unlike the Caitlin Upton incident did in 2007; it, rightly, IMHO, enjoys a mention in Miss Teen USA 2007. 69.212.14.168 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/199.8.26.10|199.8.26.10]] (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has received news coverage on several networks, moreso than who the winner was. I'm going to add it. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I guess anything qualifies for a Wiki entry or mention at the least. And I love how people make up damned near any 'rule' (sometimes on the spot) as a reason or defense for adding.  And since when did this turn into a gossip column?  What's next to qualify for an article?  My dog?69.204.225.103 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would hope after reading this shit (not all, but most, was) up above that it was written BEFORE the media blitz. The bottom line: Conical had it right. So if it had been about interracial marriage, would you people still be shrugging it off and saying it shouldn't be added to the article? Yahoo's front page did a story on it right after the show was over. It was big news. Also, I wasn't asking for a play-by-play of the telecast. Don't be an asshole. Dryamaka, you're basically on probation as it is, right? Oh, and I'm erasing the homophobic bullshit from the anonymous IP, lets keep the site neat and tidy. And that last entry, man, shut up if you don't have anything to contribute, asshole. Anyway, I'm also predicting some fall-out, i.e. Miss California being dropped from endorsement deals (yes even the runners-up get them sometimes). If or when this occurs, it deserves mention, too. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if it's 'homophobic' or 'freedom of religion' (arguments I've seen elsewhere on the Internet), since it's been all over the news, clearly it does deserve to be in the article.199.8.26.10 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dryamaka wasn't poking at anything 'homophobic' if you would read between the lines. S/He was merely questioning the need for that section in the article, and probably before it was realized just how much attention it would receive.  You evidently have a defensive base against homophobia, which is ok, but please refrain from bias opinions in articles and discussions (remember, these articles should provide FACT not OPINION), not to mention the foul language.  I am re-instating Dryamaka's changes, as they are part of the chain of discussion had here.  Lastly, you are in no position to determine who is or is not on 'probation.'65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Snap! Anyway, if I recall, Perez Hilton stated that it was the way she gave her answer that caused her to lose, not her actual position (he did call her a 'dumb b*tch,' but I'm sure that's just part of his persona). The current wording seems to imply that he said it was her position that caused her to lose. Am I right in thinking this, or am I reading too much into it?199.8.26.10 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, by God, you're right! It's as if we've lost sight of that.69.204.225.103 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that sarcasm, or...? Just trying to be clear.199.8.26.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Agreeing! Great point.  Wiki's turning into a biased gossip column sadly.69.204.225.103 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters what I think, but if it had been about interracial marriage, but had not led to any notable coverage, than it should not have been in the article. Just curious: Does anyone know the winner's position on Same-Sex Marriage?199.8.26.10 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dumb bitch"? Eh, the shoe fits. But that's beside the point. I think its funny everybody wanted to argue with me when I was the first to mention the glaring omission from the article. Oh, and there's no way in hell the question being about interracial marriage and the chick's answer being the same bigoted thing NOT causing a media blitz. It would practically start FIRES. So that doesn't really make sense. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rage, please stop. We get your point: you're very pro-gay rights.  The point has been grossly made and there is no need for further discussion.  Just stop.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! This is not a forum!(Yes, I'm aware that this comment is as much forum-related as others. Still!)199.8.26.10 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently their IS need for further discussion because people keep attempting (and failing) to rationalize it not being mentioned in the article. Which is solid bullshit. Period. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All instances of profanity will be deleted and reported as vandalism, per Wikipedia Rules.Dryamaka (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when is a beauty contest a litmus test for anyones socio-political world views? WTF was this clown thinking when he even asked that question? and GOOD FOR HER that she gave her honest opinion. I would think less of her had she not. It is NOT homophobic ( a misnomer if ever there was one; Phobic=fear, I believe she showed absolutely none ) to state her beliefs wether you agree with them or not. Grow the hell up. Angelus13 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelus13 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its 2009, he asked the question because its relevant. Why do you have a problem with him asking the question? Its funny when people try to rationalize bigotry. She's a bigot. Blah, phobic is fear, along the same lines as "if you're too open-minded your brains will fall out". You would NOT be saying the same thing if the question had been about interracial marriage (something middle America still has an issue with). Also, get a screen name. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There really is no problem to the question; the problem is what HE felt her answer should be. She answered to "what she thinks" and in her opinion... there are more answers than just HIS opinion to answer that loaded question.  In this country, we have a right under "freedom of speech" to voice our thoughts and opinions for or against any thing in this universe.  The question was posed to her and what she thought, and Hilton's thoughts and opinion are irrelevant and unnecessary here. I suppose if he was qualified genes-wise to run for Miss USA himself then he'd have the opportunity to answer that question any way he chose to if it was posed to him, but again he's not the one being qualified and the question was not for his response. Brainchild7 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote claims source but isn't

 * OK, so I was just looking for a source for a quote, to see if an apparent typo was in the source or not (but having looked again, I guess the typo was just a figment of my imagination). The article currently cited as number 10, Malkin's "Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama", doesn't contain the quote followed by the #10 footnote indicator.  (#11 seems to match up, so it doesn't seem to just be an off-by-one.)  Is there an actual source for that quote?
 * This was denied by Lewis, who said he did not release a statement to the celebrity blogger and said, "I support Carrie's right to express her personal beliefs even if they do not coincide with my own, I believe the subject of gay marriage deserves a great deal more conversation in order to heal the divide it has created" [sic, also missing punctuation]
 * J. Randall Owens | (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pinknews.co.uk
Any reason we should include speculation pertaining to Miley Cyrus's twitter account on this page? - Schrandit (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, not really needed. The article is about Miss USA 2009; let's leave it at that and not have it turn into a gossip column as I'm sure Rage would love to see just that.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Unrelated Comments in 'Discussion'
'''Effective 4/27/09: any comments in 'Discussion' for this article that are not related to the core subject will be deleted in order to clean up a bit. It's become too messy and appears to have strayed quite a ways from the original topic, not to mention this is not a forum. Please keep discussions related to topi(s) of article. Additional headers for topics in the articles will be considered based on validity, as per Wiki rules and standards.Dryamaka (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)'''
 * And you're a guy with a lot of warnings on probation. And I'm right with what I've been saying -- people are trying to rationalize (and failing) NOT adding mention of the incident to the article. Food for thought. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned, and what is there is sufficient without going ad nauseum and straying away from the core topic. If you would like to continue, please submit and create an article separate of this.  This is not a forum, nor is it a gossip channel for biased people to exploit their thoughts.Dryamaka (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge "controversy" with Carrie Prejean article?
The article section Miss USA 2009 is almost exactly redundant with Carrie Prejean, the latter of which points to the former as the "main article" on the topic. Should the latter be shortened? How is this redundancy best handled? --JeredF (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was planning on creating an article about the controversy in the next few days and then redirecting both of those sections there while leaving a few sentences about the incident. - Schrandit (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea, but it may start a war with 'Ragemanchoo82' who tends to think that this entire article here should be devoted to that topic alone (see posts in 'Discussion' amidst the vulgarity...). I think that entire section here should be removed and created as its own article (as you suggest) since it really has nothing to do with the core issues of this article anyway, and simply deleting it here would just make most sense, but then you would have to call yourself a homophobe according to Rage.65.215.94.13 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The incident hardly warrants its own article. It's questionable whether it's worthy of including in an encyclopedia at all.  However, since several editors will blow a gasket if anyone tries to remove it completely, it will have to be included somewhere.  The question is, where.  At present, we have sections in Carrie Prejean, Miss USA 2009 and Perez Hilton that cover exactly the same material with varying degrees of neutrality, plus regular attempts at the Alan Duncan article to characterize some offhand comment he made about Prejean's response on a tv comedy show as a death threat.  This is ridiculous.


 * I propose that the we attempt to fix this mess and head off any more insanity by keeping the information at this article page with no more than a few sentences at Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton directing readers here. It will be much easier to contain, and will prevent attempts by certain editors to introduce bias into the reporting.  This will also prevent a barely newsworthy and hardly encyclopedic mini-"controversy" from being given undue weight.  Exploding Boy (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazing, Exploding Boy, you are the one editor that keeps jamming Hilton's hate-filled comments into article after article. It is NOT encyclopedic to repeat word for word Hilton's Nazi level personal attacks on Wikipedia.  You have jammed those hate-filled comments into Carrie Prejean's article over and over and when anyone attempts to remove the hate-filled, nasty, one-sided, biased comments of Hilton you scream "Censorship."  It is entirely possible to cover Hilton's hatred of Prejean and Prejean's beliefs without having to repeat word for word Hilton's negative, mean, nasty, hate speech.  It is NOT what Wikipedia is designed for and it is NOT appropriate according to BLP.--InaMaka (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I said the same thing and tried in vein...did you see all the stuff here by Rage?69.204.225.103 (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * InaMaka, first of all I strongly suggest you tone down the personal attacks and the hyperbole. I take neither Prejean's nor Hilton's side on this issue, which as you know I think isn't even worthy of inclusion here at all.  Since certain people are bound and determined to include it in Wikipedia, I'm simply trying to ensure that we do so neutrally.  I have not been adding Hilton's comments anywhere, in fact.  But in any case, that is not what this particular discussion is about.  Here we are trying to discuss where to locate coverage of the incident.  Would you please try to stay on topic.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exploding Boy: I have NOT engaged in any personal attacks and for you to say that I did is a a false accusation.  I have pointed correctly that Hilton's comments about Prejean ARE a personal attack of the most nasty, hate-filled manner.  My comments about Hilton's comments is a FACT, nothing else and when Wikipedia repeats his personal attacks Wikipedia is taking sides in his nasty, hate-filled vindictive attacks on the character of Miss Prejean.  We, as Wikipedians, can cover these his topics without repeating word for word is use of the word "bitch" and his reference to the word "cunt."  When we repeat his nasty, unnecessary, hate-mongering comments we are victimizing Miss Prejean just as much as Hilton is.  There is NO place for Wikipedia is jump on this nasty, hate-filled bandwagon.  There is a more reasonable, rational way to cover this topic.  I will remove each and every time the rules of BLP are violated.  Also, this is a page to talk about ALL aspects of the Miss USA controversy and you are not going to dictate to me what I can or cannot say.  You do not decide for everyone on Wikipedia what is "on topic" or not on topic.  And that is a fact.--InaMaka (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relax, InaMaka. I'm not trying to stop you from talking about Miss USA.  I'm saying that in this section we're trying to discuss where (in which article) to locate the issue on Wikipedia.  However, this is not a place to discuss all aspects of the Miss USA controversy; article talk pages exist only to discuss improvements to articles.  They are not general discussion forums.  This is why I keep asking you to stay on topic.


 * You're correct in saying that Hilton's remarks were a personal attack on Prejean. However, we do not censor what we include in Wikipedia.  If we're going to include any reporting of the controversy, then we must include what was said by the two major players.  Hilton called Prejean a stupid bitch.  That's a large part of the controversy, so we must include it, just as we include her response.  Instead of threatening to engage in edit wars, it would be far more productive to engage in discussion of how to improve the relevant articles.  Exploding Boy (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me help you out here Exploding Boy. We do NOT have to include Hilton's nasty, hate-filled personal attacks on Prejean that you just repeated on this talk page.  There is no need for anyone on Wikipedia to repeat his vile, moronic, stupid, nasty, fascist comments--just like you did above.  If the nasty comments of Hilton are included in this article or the Prejean article or the Miss USA article then I will remove them.  It is simple as that.  There are tons of bloggers on the Internet repeating his fascist rant and it is not necessary for Wikipedia to jump on that bandwagon.  Don't give lectures about censorship.  That's a damn lie.  As editors of Wikipedia we a duty to make a good, sound product, that is the first dictum of Jimbo, and for you to claim falsely that we have to repeat Hilton's personal attacks is simply not true.  You have now added to your list of incorrect comments.  You stated that I personally attacked another Wikipedian which was not true and now you have misstated the facts about what we have to put in an article and what we shouldn't.  I will remove the repetition of Hilton's remarks in the future because for us to repeat them then Wikipedia is participating in a personal attack.  It is soundly against BLP policy that Jimbo was personally involved in making. You are wrong.--InaMaka (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this is not the place for this particular discussion, and I would suggest to you that (a) it's not in your best interest to announce your intention to engage in edit warring and (b) your clear bias in favour of Prejean suggests you may not be able to write about this incident neutrally. Now can we please get back to the matter at hand, which is where to locate this information?  Exploding Boy (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion rightly belongs in this article. Mr. Hilton's later public remarks were abusive, crude, and insulting. In the interests of posterity, they should be characterized as such and not merely as "negative". Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Source for scores
No idea where we'll get an official citation for the scores but I've removed it because it mucks up the heading format & looks bad. The scores were obviously shown during the telecast... anyone up for citing that? Not quite sure how it should be done... PageantUpdater talk • contribs  14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Contestant Gallery
Removed the 'contestant gallery' not really needed here, honestly. Especially with only one of the 51 contestants? It looks so weird, stands out, and is basically just an appendix to the list of contestants anyway.65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

removed from article
"On the April 24, 2009, edition of Have I Got News For You, a British MP Alan Duncan was asked his opinion of Prejean's comments on same sex marriage. Duncan replied, 'If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me, won't you?' Duncan's comments were immediately condemned by various group including Public Advocate president Eugene Delgaudio who stated: 'Public Advocate is concerned when government officials from abroad advocate murdering our citizens. The British ambassador in Washington should be sent home immediately and the president of the United States should sever diplomatic relations for a period of time.” The pastor at Prejean's church also condemned Duncan's comments. The Rev. Miles McPherson stated: 'You cannot say it was a joke. The man is a leading politician who may soon have great government power. Murder is murder in any context.'  Responding to the controversy, Duncan said in an interview in a London newspaper, The Independent: 'I'm sure she's very beautiful and that if we were to meet we would love each other. I have no plans to kill her. I'll send her a box of chocolates – unpoisoned' Matthew Bell, the reporter for the Independent, commented that Duncan 'appeared to have a sense of humour failure.'"

I have removed the above from the article. It's presented wholly inappropriately: clearly it was not a threat. It was a comment made in the context of a television comedy show. Claiming otherwise is entirely non-neutral. It is certainly not notable enough to include in this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point- there are people that want this entire article based on a singular topic- this stupid gay marriage controversy, which has already had its say in here.69.204.225.103 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Prejean's implants
How is Prejean receiving implants at all relevant to the question of gay marriage? Why is it even mentioned in this article at all? The article doesn't mention any other contestant's breasts, enhanced or otherwise. Just because some bit of trivia makes it into a news(ish) report doesn't mean it's worthy of appearing in Wikipedia. John Darrow (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about gay marriage, it is about the Miss USA 2009 contest, and the fact that one of the state committee's paid for breast implants for one of the contestants right before nationals should be in here, as it is a noteworthy story dealing directly with the 2009 Miss USA contest. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I note you were the person who originally added the paragraph. You seem to have missed the point of the questions.  First, the article may be about the Miss USA 2009 contest, but the section the implants paragraph was in is specifically about the gay marriage question.  Second, even if the paragraph was moved elsewhere in the article, what makes Prejean's implants any more notable than any other things which were provided for other contestants by their respective state committees?  Were Prejean not so much in the news for her statements, it's unlikely anyone would have done an interview regarding her implants.  Surely you don't believe California was the only state that provided something special for their contestant in an attempt to raise their standing in the competition!  Thus, singling out Prejean's implants seems calculated to cast a negative light on Prejean, implying e.g. that she is shallow to have implants, or that she is a hypocrite for accepting such aid but then taking a position against the expected political correctness of the pageant.  As such, the paragraph's presence appears to be a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.  John Darrow (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was my mistake to include it in the subsection on gay marriage, the whole section should be labeled controversies, then it can have its own subsection. What makes the boob job notable? Lots of stories about it for example and .  Please see WP:GNG for an explanation of notability. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of the guidelines - please note (per the third paragraph of its lead) that WP:GNG is a notability guideline for whether a particular topic is notable enough for its own article, not whether a particular bit of information is notable enough to go into an article about something else. For that information, things like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP prevail.  (Even though this article isn't itself a biography, information within it which is specifically about one individual still falls under BLP.)
 * Again, I see two issues. One is, does this information belong on WP at all?  If it violates NPOV and the pertinent parts of BLP, it does not belong, even if it is sourced.  Second, even if it can be presented neutrally, does it belong in _this_ article?  Again, there were 50 other contestants in this competition.  Was her case unique, or did others (including possibly the winner) also receive help of various sorts from their state organizations?  If so, presenting said info specifically about Prejean without mentioning any other cases seems inherently POV.  (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.")  John Darrow (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also remember that wikipedia is not censored. What makes her boob job different from the other contestants is the national media attention focused on the CA pageant paying for them, if there is material out there on other contestants getting their tits done then put it in and we won't violate NPOV. The boob job story isn't a titillating claim, it is a fact that has been verified by the CA pageant committee.TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miss USA 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.dothaneagle.com/dea/lifestyles/local/article/miss_alabama_usa_learned_confidence_in_pageants/58283/
 * Added tag to http://www.adn.com/photos/life/hometown/v-gallery/story/110365.html?%2F1521%2Fgallery%2F110366-a600792-t3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502200717/http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/4/27/miss-california-carrie-prejean-signs-with-top-christian-publicity-firm.html to http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/4/27/miss-california-carrie-prejean-signs-with-top-christian-publicity-firm.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207010121/http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=99763 to http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=99763

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023
Change Venus Raj to Courtni Hall Source: https://www.journalreview.com/stories/southmont-grad-crowned-miss-indiana-usa,57997

Change Miss Indiana's height to 5'3" and her notes to being Miss Indiana Teen USA 2004. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20050216112531/http://www.missteenusa.com/delegates/2004/files/IN.html

Change Miss Indiana's hometown from Evansville to Crawfordsville. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20221005013021/https://www.pageantupdate.info/miss-usa-2009-almanac.html SMRogers90 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)