Talk:Miss Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a WikiProject related to beauty pageants, their contestants and winners.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miss Earth article.
Article policies


A stub article like this could well list other similar contests suitable for further expansion. Pre-eminent among these would be the Miss International Beauty Pageant, which has been running since 1960. Its long-time organizer is the International Cultural Association of Japan, in conjunction (according to the Sri Lankan Sunday Observer [1]) with the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

The pageant uses the taglines: "Festival of Beauty" and "Ambassador of Peace and Beauty" [2]. Held in Long Beach, California, from 1961 to 1965 and in 1967 and 1971, and in Japan in from 1968 to 1970 and 1972 to 2003 (usually in the city hosting the Japan Expo), it is scheduled to be held in Beijing in October 2004.

Miss Venezuela, Goizeder Azua, was crowned Miss International in Tokyo in 2003 from amongst finalists from 45 countries. The winners from 1960 to 1979 have been recorded [3].

Contents

[edit] Problem with "See also" section

"Miss Iraq 2007 might have a chance to comete (sic) at Miss Earth, we own the license since 2001 and there was an attempt in 2006."
Who is "we"? Not very encyclopaedic is it? Is this vandalism?

Quintessentiallycy 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC) i agree. i believe it should be edited or deleted. dones't make any sense. 138.243.129.4 10:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Missearthlogo.JPG

Image:Missearthlogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Greenmile1980

Please stop promoting your Miss Earth pageant without sensible reason or citations.Here is the numbers of countries/territories have competed in Grand Slam pageants to 2007:

  • Miss World: 175 (Total of [4],[5],[6] and not including some cases as Ceylon = Sri Lanka or Holland = the Netherlands; etc)
  • Miss Universe: 164 (Total of [7],[ [8],[9] and not including some cases as British Guina = Guyana; Ceylon = Sri Lanka; Western Samoa = Samoa; Soviet Union = U.S.S.R; etc)
  • Miss Earth: 125 (Source: [10])
  • Miss International: 131 (Total of [11],[12] and not including some cases as Zaire = Congo; Holland = the Netherlands; etc)

That means Miss Earth is the least and it's negative with your opinion that is "At the present, Miss Earth holds the record of having the greatest number of national-level contests,..."

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenmile Response: Miss Earth is not my pageant. Let us all exercise professionalism in our statements.You have cited above through pageantpolis that Miss Earth has the least number of participants among the four major pageants in the world, however, look closely with this statement "At present, Miss Earth holds the record of having the greatest number of national-level contests." Please take note that "greatest number of participants" is different from "greatest number of national-level contests". One can participate in an international pageant without joining a national-level contest. Nevertheless, the lines in the article that you previously tagged “need citation” were not my statement and more importantly not an opinion. As I can see, references were already provided but there's a need to reformat the footnote/references.

[edit] Press Release

This article reads like a press release. Statements about how terrific the pageant is are POV and should be removed. Most of the article comes under this rule. 76.22.20.146 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need RELIABLE sources

i've deleted the first six refs on the article. the first was a blurb in a photo-op section on abc news website - not a WP:RS to verify that the pageant is the third largest. none of the rest establish a basis upon which the claim that it is the third largest can be verified. i can't say with certainty, but i think it's pretty clear that they're just regurgitating what this article claims. what is needed is a reliable source that confirms the basis of the claim - largest in terms of viewership, largest in terms of number of applicants, largest in terms of revenues, largest in terms of finalists - it's a pretty ambiguous claim to uphold. in order for the source to be reliable, it should be from a trusted source that clearly details the basis. simply citing an article that says it is the third largest - without specific details - is not acceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Totally agree with you, Anastrophe.This article is very biased..."At the present, Miss Earth holds the record of having the greatest number of national-level contests,..."...Wow!Paranoid!Miss Earth couldn't beat Miss World and Miss Universe!I think this silly article should be re-make!Hey!Jessica Trisko will be the worst in top 5 Miss GS this year!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

anonymous continues to add back these questionable references. this needs to be ironed-out here in talk, rather than via a revert war. if necessary we can submit a request for comment from third parties. Anastrophe (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
i will note also that i just removed a fairly lengthy portion of the article that claimed that miss afghanistan received the 'presidential gold medal' or 'presidential service award' that was complete fiction. this speaks strongly to the need to have all sources used on this page vigorously vetted for accuracy. Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As I can see, a reliable source has been provided dated way back in 2005 that established the basis of the claim.--Richie Campbell (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc: are the citations in this article reliable

The article cited six sources in the first para of the lede claimed as corroborating the statements in that paragraph. the problem i see is that they do not appear to be truly reliable sources. most of them simply reiterate the claim, rather than detailing the specific rationale upon which the claim is made. i believe there's a fairly good chance these sources are simply regurgitating this very article's claims. this came to light when i discovered the fictional status of a claim within the article (detailed immediately above this rfc). i believe my concerns are valid. the editor who added these citations insists that they are valid. i'd like some feedback from disinterested editors. Anastrophe (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC comment: I assume you mean this version? I believe feedback has occurred before, so it's something to watch for. I'm not sure what these citations purport to show. Thes should be inlined more intelligently. I can't tell what these citation are supposed to prove. I find an ABC photo caption less-than-convincing for claiming it as the third largest competition. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
RFC Comment: I do agree with your "regurgitation theory" and that those references definitely are less-than-convincing, however, the current reference cited in the article gives light to the claim of Miss Earth as "one of the three most prestigious pageants in the world in terms of quality and size"[1]. Although the article has been revised and eliminated a lot of advertisement lines, the pageant system section further needs revision to satisfy the Wikipedia article style. Maybe you can help.--Richie Campbell (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advert tag

My fellow editors:

Shortcut:
WP:YESPOV

I’m planning to revise and improve the main article of Miss Earth , which include the removal of the advert tag. In ligt of the Wikipedia policy on the right side of this paragraph, I would like to ask disinterested editors to comment and identify the statements or sections in the Miss Earth article that are advertisement in nature.

The advert tag has been in placed since 12/18/07, since then, the article has undergone several edits, eliminating the advertisement statements, as reflected in the article contents and history (before[13] and current[14]). If there are remnants of it, please let other editors know, so we can come up into win-win solution. I'm looking forward to your cooperation. Thank you. --Richie Campbell (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

a separate tip: it's not necessary to add the shortcut box etc - you can simply wikilink directly to the policy: WP:YESPOV, though really, WP:ADVERT is the page to review. Anastrophe (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits you made in the Miss Earth article. I do agree with the elimination of the statements that were challenged, but no further citations were provided, i.e. statements like the one about the “crown” and the “no make up during the selection of semifinalists”. Moreover. I am amenable with the trimmings of the references, as you did in the “delegates” section; however, I suggest to at least leave two (2) references in some particular scenarios, which suggest to require more references like the statement pertaining to Miss Afghanistan since it says “worldwide press coverage” and also to the withdrawal of Miss Tibet to Miss Tourism Contest since it states “more headlines”. In conjunction with this, I suggest to retain references from BBC, ABC News, CNN, because these international news agencies are highly reliable sources. Likewise, I recommend the deletion of the statement, which reads “most prestigious beauty pageants in the world in terms of size and quality (the other two are Miss Universe and Miss World contests)” and replace it with: "Along with Miss Universe and Miss World contests, Miss Earth is one of the three largest beauty pageants in the world in terms of the number of national level competitions to participate in the world finals. [15]". The reference shows the organizations conducting national level competitions, including their websites. Take into account the fact that the word “prestigious” is included in the list of peacock terms, while the word "largest" is not; largest is even cited as one of the good examples of non-peacock terms, when further details are given . I think it’s better to use “one of the three largest” rather than using “third largest”, since beauty pageants sometimes (e.g. Miss Universe) fluctuate in the number of national competitions, including the actual number of delegates competing in the finals e.g. in 2007, Miss Earth has: 88 delegates; Miss Universe: 77 delegates; Miss World: 106 delegates according to their respective websites. I did not include Miss International since its highest number of delegates in the last decade is 61. Furthermore, I did not take account of Miss Tourism Queen International because it is not considered by most international pageant websites as a major pageant (see posted info by a certain editor, Jet Perry) and the following references support the claim [16] [17] [18][19] [20][21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and not to mention the fact the pageant organizer, with the exception of China, is handpicking all the delegates. Other than my comments, I think the article is now a lot better than in December of last year. --Richie Campbell (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the advert tag of the Miss Earth article, in view of the fact that the advertisement statements has been eliminated and the article has undergone major transformation from the time when the advert tag was put in placed in December [28] . The POV tag was also removed since the contested statement (the Miss Earth pageant is recognized as one of the three most prestigious beauty pageants in the world in terms of size and quality) was eliminated and replaced the word “prestigious” into “largest” since it’s listed as one of Wikipedia’s peacock words/terms; instead a more definitive word was used, such as “largest”, followed by an identifier and reference of the national directors conducting the national competitions. If you have any suggestions to improve the article, please feel free to discuss. Thank you. --Richie Campbell (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)