Talk:Caitlin Upton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deletion Review

There is now a Deletion Review Here regarding the deletion and protection of the article.--Joebengo 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A good story

Messy Thinking 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC) If a YouTube video on Upton's blooper can amass TWO MILLION hits and all this commentary in a matter of hours, it's definitely something to at least take note of.

There's sooooooooo much more to these pageant girls than their, ahem, anatomy. We can learn truckloads from the way they handle themselves under fire, certainly more than if we were watching anything in the Idol franchise. Besides, all she did was make an innocent and quite harmless little blunder (something which definitely cannot be said of Britney Spears or the Lohan matriarch). I say bring back and KEEP.

Blanked article in AfD?

How can we discuss an article for deletion when there is absolutely no article? This needs to be unprotected immediately. --Oakshade 02:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. In order to discuss the article, we need to be able to view what is written. Without that information we can only speculate as to what may or may not be listed on the page to see if it violates any policies.Tdwinz711 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Post should be part of a larger article

This story is not Wiki material unless it is posted as of other people where it shows their bio and other significant stats and accomplishments. As an educator, I can attest that our education system is flawed, however, this incident can be somewhat of a footnote. It should not be posted in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockfan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous!!!!!

This block is outrageous and un-Wiki! Lauren Caitlin is about a TRILLION times more important, beloved and prominent than at least 99% of all the article subjects on this joke of a site.

WHY, OH WHY, are Wikipedia's administrators so freaking a***-retentive and have such an inferiority complex and fragile egos???

Do all of you HAVE TO ruin the fun and enthusiasm of the rest of us members JUST BECAUSE you need to feel powerful and important so desperately?? Are all of you school marm librarian types in wool sweaters with thick glasses, afraid of the thought of romance and fun?

SHEESH.

This Lauren Caitlin Upton Bio page better be approved quickly and available for work. America can't wait any longer for the Wikipedia Administrator Moron Club and assorted other freak Wikipedia unions to get a life.

Don't you people have JOBS, or do you just play with yourselves here while you're playing with and tormenting the rest of us contributors? Nleobold 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be brought to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.176.192 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Agreed, it is quite outragious that her wiki was flagged for deletion. It's amazing these days how some people try to play God, and then offer their reasoning for why. As if we care. Restore the wiki. 24.251.84.221 09:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft article

Caitlin Upton is an American fashion model and beauty pageant contestant who is currently Miss South Carolina Teen USA. She was the 3rd runner up in the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant. Upton gained international notoriety for her indecipherable response to a question posed to her during the national pageant.

Upton is from Lexington, South Carolina and had attended Lexington High School where she was an honor student. She has modeled in numerous advertisements for such companies as Nautica and Wrangler and has appeared in national magazines like Seventeen, Cosmo Girl and American Cheerleader.

Upton plans to attend Appalachian State University to study graphic design.

Famous response

As part of a question and answer portion of the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant, Upton was asked by a pageant judge, "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"

A nervous Upton responded:

I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, um, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our [children]. .

According to YouTube, video clips of her response on the website have had over 10 million views. Many YouTube users made their own paradies of the incident. As a guest on NBC's The Today Show, Caitlin told Ann Curry and Matt Lauer that she was "overwhelmed" when asked the question and didn't comprehend it correctly . The Today Show hosts gave Upton another opportunity to answer the question and she responded:

Personally, my friends and I, we know exactly where the United States is on a map. I don’t know anyone else who doesn’t. If the statistics are correct, I believe there should be more emphasis on geography in our education so people will learn how to read maps better.

Both Curry and Lauer, along with unseen Today Show crew members, applauded her response.

Notes

Take out the word "interesting" for that might have a derogatory connotation. Aside from that, the draft is more than suitable. The only statement that I'd like to add is: "Because of the extensive coverage of the incident on youtube, Upton's response has become something of an internet phenomenon". Zuracech lordum 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this. I'm trying to think of a more suitable word than "interesting", but if you have an idea, have at it. --Oakshade 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The obvious starting place for any article would be the article that was here until June/July until I speedied it after the other AFDs. This followed the general layout for pageant titleholder bios and included an infobox etc. Hopefully an admin could restore it. Obviously information about her performance at Teen USA and her famous answer could then be added to that... what I'm basically saying is there is no need to start from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just saw that version for the first time. Very well wikified article. Probably would be good to use combined aspects from both.--Oakshade 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"incorrect response", "unusual response", "tongue-tied response". "nonsensical response", "retarded response", "abstract response", "esoteric response", "rambling response", "asinine response", "meaningless response", "ditzy response", "empty-headed response", "astonishing response", "absurd response", "incomprehensible response"... I have more if none of those are suitable.--WebHamster 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I like "unusual response". Not derogatory and could mean anything. --Oakshade 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "nonsensical response" really the most accurate description for that? I see no offense in stating the obvious.Willie the Walrein-^{talk to me} 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Although nonsensical does a good job of describing it, "indecipherable" would be best because it was used by a reliable source. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I like "indecipherable". Should the article be kept, it would be good to start the one your put together (I, as likely do others, have a few tweek ideas) and add the response to it. --Oakshade 06:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"But there's an article on so and so...

As I have stated earlier, many people here are using the argument (who may not know it exists) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Essentially, because something is lesser known does not mean something that is more well known should exist just because the lesser known thing exists. We've all heard about this video by now, but arguing that someone else isn't as well known and they have an article is, by the standard of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an invalid argument. Zchris87v 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that comments on whether or not this article should exist should be directed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Upton rather than being posted here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see Zchris87v is from S.Carolina, making his responsis to this topic bias and unwanted, and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.35.59 (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This in fact does not negate my argument by any means, and is not a valid reason to claim that my response is "bias and unwanted", because the points that I prove are clear. "Other stuff exists" is STILL not a valid argument, and nowhere in that portion of this discussion did I say I wanted the article deleted or kept. Because I am from South Carolina does not mean that people can still use the Other Stuff Exists argument. My opinion on the article may not count, but I can clearly see the use of an invalid argument. Zchris87v 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Trump Modeling Agency

I put in a little blurb that I heard on WIS News Midday (I'm from Lexington, SC) about Upton signing a contract with Donald Trump's Modeling Agency. She reported to NYC this morning where she will live in the Trump Apartments and take on assignments that will have her flying all around the world and earning potentially $25,000 per day. If any one could clean what I wrote so that it meets Wiki standards, I would appreciate. You can check the WIS TV website for references.71.28.98.203 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can put in a weblink to the story, that would be helpful. So far I can't find it on the WIS website except a written line about "a pending modeling contract in New York City." [1] --Oakshade 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a few and inserted one into the article. --Oakshade 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On a map?

Listening to the Today clip, she did not say "on a map", but:

Personally, my friends and I, we know exactly where the United States is on our map.

jnothman ^talk 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Read this: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/08/27/now_where_is_america_anyway.html Now I wonder: who really is the stupid one? The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazing Race

Shouldnt there be a new headline for her appearance on Amazing Race 16? like with Jordan Llyod's page?--Kevmicester2000 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and create one. Sourcing is always helpful. I'm a bit busy at the moment.--Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

I just spent a good deal of time and effort finding sources and putting together a page for her. Why the speedy deletion? If we can have wiki pages on obscure Star Wars creatures why can't we have one about a person that had over 2 MILLION views on the internet in one day? This story has been all over the news? WTF?! ChesterCharge 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple. She has no notability outside of the event. It doesn't matter how people responded, but the link is included. "Millions of views" says how well-known the event was. There is no page needed for either Ms. Upton or the event. Zchris87v 06:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be a useful page. I came here to find out the background about this person but someone is trying to browbeat it off of Wiki. Say, Zchris87v, what state are you from again? Is this woman a friend of yours? Migaila 06:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi stated that the reason for speedy deletion was "BLP deletion, Wikipedia not a tabloid". However, in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it states that:

Sometimes speedy deletion criteria are applied to articles that they do not and were not intended to apply to; also, rules that are not speedy deletion rules are often mistakenly used to justify speedy deletion. This section aims to clarify some of the frequently used "non-criteria" that are commonly cited but are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify speedy deletion. These are not rules and intended only to be commonly understood interpretations of the criteria above.... Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" are not part of the speedy deletion criteria. However, these reasons can be given as rationales for proposed deletion nominations, or as an argument for deletion at Articles for deletion.

I propose we put it to a vote. Rpachico 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am utterly confused, can someone explain this to me. Where is the previous discussion page? There were some good points about this page's creation and some decent back and forth. What is happening here? I understand if people want to debate the creation of the article (I'm for its creation) but why immediately delete even the discussion of said page? I feel this system has produced less dialogue, less resolution in favor of speedy deletion to aid only one side's argument in the discussion. It seems unfair not to even allow debate. Clearly there is strong interest in creation of the page as well as strong insistence that it not be allowed. I am in favor of further discussion. Why is this not being allowed? It feels faintly preemptive and high handed. Wideeyedraven 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, having this deleted serves only to compromise the values of Wikipedia. There are numerous pages in Wiki that could be considered "tabliod" material. See: Diana, Princess of Wales, JonBenét Ramsey, Laci Peterson (These people are all dead, so lets see some that are alive). See also: Star Wars kid, Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson. These are not deleted. Moreschi needs to undo what has been done. This is ridiculous. Trey

This page is like the Matrix, its been deleted and rebuilt several times over. I had quite a hard time getting it up the first (or $n^{th}$ - who knows) time, then they deleted everything all at once so there was no way to respond. Now that I've started reading encyclopedia dramatica a lot more, there is a a place for trivia and stupid internet people. The Admins should work to channel enthusiastic editors to other sites that serve the same purpose but for less erudite subject matter. There is a good case to be made to branch off all the sports and televison/movie celebrities to another site, where they can grow, instead of being compared with the word count of some battle in the civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasienski (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is invalid. Besides, the "Star Wars Kid" generated a lawsuit, Paris Hilton has numerous television appearances, and Mel Gibson is a famed actor. This article's subject said one sentence that didn't make sense. That's hardly a reason for an article. Zchris87v 05:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Come off it with that "Other stuff exists" BS... OTHER STUFF REALLY DOES EXIST. Sometimes people need to show examples to further explain their discussion. Would a biology teacher explain a certain part of a cell only to leave other parts out, simply because they exist?? So what, they exist. Now open your ears and listen to his reasoning! 24.251.84.221 08:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the articles which apparently lied about her educational achievements? Where these articles published by her friends, in an ultimately futile attempt to suggest that there was anything behind that pretty face (i.e. a brain)?JohnC (talk)

You're kidding, right? [2] [3]. Come back to me when you can explain how an article in People magazine was supposedly written by her friends. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Osama

I'm pretty sure she said the word "osama" ... towards the beginning of her confused speech... can other people here verify if that's the case? 137.92.97.114 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification, by this encyclopedia's standards, comes from reliable sources. Those referenced in the article, USA Today and The Guardian, don't interpret that section of the speech as "osama." As far as I can tell, no other reliable source has interpreted it that way as well. --Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is where she is generally credited with saying "some people out there". Of course her "answer" is so confused and meaningless that random words like "Osama" could easily have slipped in!JohnC (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not "Osama".. It's "Some" .. as of "Because um some people...". --Suki300me (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a personal opinion piece, rather than a Wiki entry

I know nothing about the individual of whom this article is about, but I can't help but notice numerous personal attacks like, "convoluted and nonsensical", of which Wikipedia is no place for. All personal opinions, personal values and biases should be refrained from here. If an expert on the subject or someone else who is noteworthy makes such a statement, that is fine, individual should be credited and it needs to be cited. Nowhere should it draw attention to the author of the page. For example, if you will notice that in the entry for the Joseph Stalin, the author doesn't call him a monster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE9D:EFD0:D469:B492:5380:5CC3 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but "nonsensical" is an objective term that means "doesn't make sense". It's not a personal attack. "Monster" is a subjective term, a matter of opinion, but the fact that her answer to the question made no sense is not a matter of opinion, it is the bare truth. Her answer was nonsensical, and therefore the description of it as such is accurate and encyclopedic. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No citations in the parody section?

Where is the link to the esurance ad or an article saying it exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.4.65 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caitlin Upton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070831084800/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2007/08/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Beauty-Queen-Geography.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Beauty-Queen-Geography.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caitlin Upton. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029125549/http://www.news.com.au:80/entertainment/story/0,23663,22450632-10229,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,22450632-10229,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversial comments by Tucker Carlson

Comments by Tucker Carlson on Upton are noteworthy and references are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhfjbaker (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In March 2019, recordings of Tucker Carlson on Bubba the Love Sponge surfaced where he repeatedly denigrated Upton's intelligence and expressed ungentlemanly speculation on her sexual behavior.

References

I don't see how it's due in this article when it isn't at Tucker Carlson, when the USAToday ref is about him. Wikipedia is not a venue for scandal mongering. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)