This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I really question whether a discrete article on this issue is warranted. This now makes the 5th Wikipedia article I'm aware of where it's mentioned (often at length), along with Carrie Prejean, Britney Spears, Miss USA 2009, and Alan Duncan. Is this issue likely to be remembered in a few years' time? Is it really important enough to immortalize with an encyclopedia article? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try not to turn this talk page into a repeat of the Carrie Prejean talk page. Please stick to discussions of the article at hand. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Hilton is a living person, I redacted my statement. The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a loaded question such as that was asked of her, her response of course would be a 50/50 chance opinion of being for or against it. Do you mean to tell me that she only had a politically correct opinion to give even if that opinion would have been a lie coming from what she thinks or believes? She was asked do you think the other states should follow suit? If they didn't like her answer (what she thought), then why may I ask was a question like that asked if there was a 50% probability that she would not agree with, or would not think that the other states should follow suit to same-sex marriage? Whoever made up the question obviously was pro-same-sex marriage and not anti-same-sex marriage (the other side of the coin). Well Future Miss USA, there's only one correct answer to this question, regardless of what you think. If you guess it right you've got the crown, if you give your true opinion, then you're a b-word. They asked her opinion, this is a free country (freedom of speech), let her give it, let her keep her crown, she was honest for crying out loud. Mr. Hilton probably wanted the crown himself, but he doesn't qualify genes-wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.213.244 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
Ms. Prejean says her beliefs are why she lost the crown, a lot of folks agree. Why not include it? - Schrandit (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"…the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants" writes Ann CoulterinLiberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California. "Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news." Regarding the release of genuine "semi-nude" photos, Ann adds (in her typical style): "Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.)"[1] In addition, many conservatives also took issue with the choice of having a gay man, controversial or otherwise, serving on a pageant judging female beauty. Asteriks (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
Isn't saying that Perez Hilton made "negative comments" a bit of weasel langauge? He used profanity to describe her. 66.75.50.94 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Schrandit, it's potentially problematic to characterise Hilton's comments as "obscene." Is calling someone a "dumb bitch" obscene? And if so, in what sense? In a legal sense? And in whose estimation? Calling someone a "cunt" might be considered obscene, given that that's usually considered a particularly offensive word, yet Hilton never actually said it: he said "c-word." "Bitch," on the other hand, is inoffensive enough to make it to daytime and primetime tv in North America.
Certainly we can summarize, but we must be careful about undue weight, which has developed into a major problem in other articles dealing with this topic, in which Hilton's comments have been reduced to meaningless phrases like "made negative remarks," and Prejean's responses quoted in full. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way I heard it, the show's organizers didn't want Miss CA as Miss USA specifically because of her Christian beliefs so they fed her a low-blow question designed to torpedo her candidacy. Contests like Miss USA are purely commercial enterprises that have no real bearing or impact on American life and do not deserve a place in Wikipedia. Perez Hilton's remarks were crude, insulting, and self-serving and should be characterized as such (if at all). Virgil H. Soule (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is important to distinguish between reponses between people within the organization- who affect her crown status- such as the Miss Cali runner up and Trump.
Responses by generic political commentators are a different story. The Squicks (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So some guy cracks a joke on a radio show. Where's the "controversy"? Am I missing something here?--Shantavira|feed me 08:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Perez [Hilton] had actually written the question hoping Miss Utah would answer it, thereby bringing attention to the Mormon Church’s financing of the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign."[1]
It appears that Carrie Prejean was just unlucky, and got a question originally intended to specifically target another beauty pageant contestant. I don't know if this is relevant, or how to fit it into the current article, so I will leave it here. StarNeptune (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]