Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:46, 14 November 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carrie Prejean article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carrie Prejean article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Beauty Pageants Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Carrie Prejean. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Carrie Prejean at the Reference desk.

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 Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carrie_Prejean 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.

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Sχeptomaniac 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 and 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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)

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

{{editsemiprotected}}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!"

"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)

Larry King Interview

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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• Biography articles needing attention
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class Beauty Pageants articles
• Low-importance Beauty Pageants articles
• C-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles