Talk:List of people who have been pied

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 victims of crimes category 2 purpose etc 3 Cleanup 4 Proposed categories for this list 5 list cleanup and cited vs uncited

[edit] victims of crimes category

I'm not sure that pieing is a crime. Will remove it unless evidence or an argument is presented otherwise. -- Craigtalbert 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they consent to be pied, then it's not, but if it's nonconsensual pieing, then it would qualify as an assault or even battery -- a nonconsensual, harmful or insulting contact. Simple battery is a misdemeanor in most common law jurisdictions, and is a basis for civil actions in tort. I don't think it should be only classified under criminal actions; comedic routines, social protests, and so on, should also be added as appropriate. ... Those other categories don't currently exist under the overpopulated "Category:Lists of people" category, and there aren't enough related articles to create them yet. ... Are there other categories that would be better? --LQ 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my experience (WAAKE-UP!) it was ruled to be harassment and criminal mischief. My concern was that it wasn't "in the books" as a crime the same way that stealing or murder might be. But if it's generally considered to be criminal, I guess it makes sense. -- Craigtalbert 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criminal mischief would be a crime, just not a very serious one. I imagine that most pieing incidents would get treated as very nonserious crimes (misdemeanor assaults, criminal mischief, that sort of thing). This makes me realize that we should include language at the top of the "list of victims of crimes" category that makes it clear that crimes range from very minor (like pieing) to major (like murder, rape, kidnapping); and "victimhood" likewise can be very minor (not even involving harm, to involving very serious harm). I'll do that now, understanding that that change doesn't necessarily resolve this question --LQ 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] purpose etc

There's a very obvious discernable difference between a gag done on television for a sitcom and one done at a rally without prior arrangements without consent. Hence, the categories. The non-categoried list at the front contains those names who we don't have enough information about to put into one category or the other.

The only plausible motive for the reversion would be to clear up the section heading title of "political protest" to include "cultural" or somesuch. In which case, the appropriate move would be a title change, not a reversion. Lucidish 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss the entire point of this article. It's about throwing pies as a political statement. Why would anybody write an article with the focus as a slapstick comedy routine? In that case, you could write an article about slipping on bannana peals or an article about pulling the chair out from behind someone. Pieing is a political act, in the context of this article.

As for your changes on the "List of people who have been pied" page, I don't understand them. You categories are arbitrary. You don't know the motive as to why these people were pied. Was Calvin Klein really pied for political reasons, as you have categorized him? Let's just leave it as a simple list. I'm reverting you there, too. Griot 05:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the point, so there's nothing to miss.

Klein was a bystander against a cultural target. This is sourced on the page. Lucidish 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord. This is an article about pies. Griot 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Griot

Yes?... And? Lucidish 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Please explain how you would clean up this article. It's a list for crissakes. Griot 00:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would clean it up by reverting your edits, so that the sections are clearly delineated along obvious (and demonstrably true) lines. Your only objection to this point has been shown to be unfounded. Until then, this wiki is a complete mess (no pun intended). Lucidish 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please make suggestions for "sections" and demonstrate to me why each section you suggest is "obvious" and "demonstrably true." How is a simple list a "complete mess"? If you want to classify these names under headings, demonstrate why that would be of value and what criteria you propose for putting each name under each heading. Griot 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sections: those who were pied on television or film versus those who were pied as a political or cultural statement. Criteria: consented, and did not consent, respectively. Objective: if the linked articles (or knowledge of the editor) indicates that they belong in one category or the other. If neither, place in uncategorized list at top. All this is repetition of what I've already said. Lucidish 22:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this list was "pied on television or film." Are you proposing to include, for example, Laurel and Hardy on this list because they were pied in a film? I don't understand that. As far as I can tell, everyone on this list was pied for political reasons. I'm not clear what you mean by "cultural reasons." Why would someone be pied for cultural reasons, and can you give me an example of that? I think your suggestion for an "uncategorized" category proves why your idea of categorizing fails. Many people would be placed in the "uncategorized" category, which defeats the purpose of categorization. (Have a good weekend. Mine starts right now.) Griot 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the list. With a bit of Googling, you can find out exactly where each was pied. Christina Aguilera, for instance, was pied on the Mickey Mouse club as a kid. I'm not proposing any additions - I think it's silly and a waste of time - I'm just working with the materials that are actually, literally here. The "uncategorized" category is not very big at all, if you look at the edited list; and those names could easily just be eliminated until somebody provides sources.

By "cultural", I mean attacks on celebrities that don't seem to be associated with any political agenda, but rather are there to deflate an ego. Lucidish 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera should not be on this list if she was pied as part of TV entertainment. I'm removing her. "Cultural" isn't a very good heading; you're using the term de facto to categorize celebrities (and what do celebrities have to do with culture anyway?). If you want to divide this list into politicians, singers, actors, authors, TV personalities, and models, that's okay by me, except I'm not sure why it would be particularly useful to anybody. Would someone come to this list looking for politicians who've been pied? For authors? Griot 01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these instances wouldn't fall under that heading of 'political or cultural statements', because the heading was quite explicitly to do with "statements". This doesn't include sitcoms, which are more akin to cultural entertainment. If that's not a very good heading, then fine: the point is just that there's a distinction between that which is consented and that which isn't. Name it what you like.

As an aside, since you asked: a culture is a set of behaviors, ideas, and attitudes that are reliable and re-occurring amongst a certain people, usually restricted to a specific geographic area. The word "celebrity" is related to the word "celebrate", indicating they are persons who have a number of fans. To have a number of fans, is to say that there is a set of people who display certain fanatic behavior towards an individual (the celebrity), and have a certain happy attitude toward them. To talk about that which makes a celebrity a celebrity, is to talk about a subculture. That is why celebrities are significant to culture.

The fact that you're removing pre-existing references, while at the same time your original argument (albeit an anti-Wikipedian and irrelevant one) had to do with original intent, shows astounding hypocricy. How could you possibly reasonably reconcile these? Lucidish 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think culture is a virus. But no matter. "That which is consented and that which isn't"? Astounding hypocrisy"? C'mon. This is a list of people who have been pied fer crissakes. Let's get down to brass tacks and suspend the sopohmoric philosophizing, alright? You come up with a list of categories for these names and we'll debate the category names. After that, we can sort the names by category. Meanwhile, people who were pied as part of entertainment -- in other words, pied in fictional settings like TV or the movies -- will be removed from the list. Griot 16:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for an explanation. I gave it. Deal.

Since you're clearly not acting in good faith, I'm putting an NPOV notice up. Lucidish 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Since I'm not acting in good faith, shouldn't you put up a "Not acting in good faith" notice. I'm funnin' ya Luce. I just don't see why you want to enjoin this pissing match or how pieing can even be a subject for a point of view. You take a paper plate. You spray some whipped cream on the plate. You hold the plate on the palm of your hand. You cock your arms. You throw. It's supposed to be funny. You know, like laughter funny? Know what I mean? Griot 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to improve the wiki. You block my efforts without reason. The content of the article is meaningless to me; rather, the point is that I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, and attempting to dialogue in good faith, but am being denied both. Lucidish 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed categories for this list

Please suggest categories for this list here. Griot 16:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Already done this. See discussion above, and history page. Lucidish 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We're still in the suggestion stage. Wee need to see what the category names are before we can decide whether sections are worthwhile. I think we decided that the section names you proposed before were inadqueate, as more than a third of the names were uncategorized. Please suggest section names so we can decide on which sections to have.Griot 18:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the alternative of "voluntary" and "involuntary". Lucidish 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean two categories, one called "Involuntary" and one called "Voluntary"? Griot 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lucidish 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And the "Involutary" pied would be politicians and the like who were pied in public, and the "Voluntary" pied would be people who were pied in movies and TV show as part of a comedy routine? Griot 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lucidish 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Voluntary" and "Involuntary" work, in that some of the TV show celebs who were pied were pied involuntarily as part of TV pranks, etc. How about these two categories: "People pied in political or social protests" and "People pied in movies and TV"? Griot 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Lucidish 20:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list cleanup and cited vs uncited

I am slowly converting this to the table format, if other people want to help that would be great. Once I get it in table format I'm going to start alphabetizing the list. Depending on how unwieldy the final table is (which is likely to be "very"), I'll probably break it down into subsections such as politicians/heads of state, journalists, TV/Movies stars, etc.

Also, what do people think in terms of what to do with cited vs. uncited pieings? I see great potential for abuse by adding names to this list who haven't actually been pied. Do we want to just leave them marked as uncited, or do we remove them from the list (possibly putting them on the talk page) until cites are found? Thoughts? Improbcat 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)