Talk:Paris Hilton

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Page protection

since the article is currently protected, without notice whatsoever by anyone, I encourage the person responsible for that to offer a short explanation as to why, how long and to whom that applies. Thanks. Tullius2 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hotel

I am suprised to see no mention of the Paris Hilton hotel, which for a long time was prominently marketed under the name "Paris Hilton", although it has been downplaying that recently. It even carried the name "Paris Hilton" on the front. http://www.tomorrowland.org/photos/uncategorized/hilton_hotel_paris_2.jpg

It came back into prominence when some smart person realised that he literally could have "one night in Paris Hilton". 161.73.37.81 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason it is called the Paris Hilton Hotel is due to the fact that the hotel is located in Paris, France not because of Paris Hilton hersel 69.122.139.132 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Miscarriage

The only credible thing I could find on Paris Hilton undergoing a miscarriage is an ABC news story saying that she is suing a web site operator for publishing this story. According to the story, the only link between Paris Hilton and the person who had the miscarriage, Amber Taylor, is that the two have the same birthdate. In my opinion, not sufficient for including on Wikipedia (and certainly not in the article's abstract). --However whatever 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The introduction of this article is inaccurate in implying that the sex video was the beginning of her fame; she was already famous before that. The sex video was infamous specifically because she was already a public figure! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.20.96 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 May 2007.

I don't agree, I believe it is totaly accurate. The sex tape is the major reason for her being catapulted into the lime-light.WacoJacko 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WacoJacko, Paris was your run-of-the-mill debutante until "One Night in Paris" was leaked. She's the quintessential person who is "famous for being famous"; the tape made her name a household word, though, ironically, the only reason the tape is significant is because it's of hotel heiress Paris Hilton. Nolefan32 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On page 177 of Confessions of an Heiress, it says she turned 23 on February 27, 2004. Which means her birthday is on the 27th, not the 17th. (update)Apparently this is wrong as police documents from the 45-days-in-jail drama shows feb 17. User:Donpdonp

In the opening of the article it is stated that Paris is a felon. Is she in fact a felon? I do not think so but perhaps someone knows if a DUI is considered a felony under California state law. Natlava 04:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)natlava

South Park

The "in popular culture" section should include info on the south park episode Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset, which is largely centered around paris hilton. its pretty much along the same lines as whats in the "in popular culture" section already

70.107.41.38 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

After Ascent and CEDU, where was she jailed?

Posters on Fornits have identified her as one of the inmates at CEDU - a now closed and feared private prison for so-called troubled teens. As it is common in this line of business, she was first committed by her parents to a boot camp in the desert (the nice word is Wilderness therapy called Ascent in order to be broken.

She ran away from CEDU and was instead imprisoned at a facility in Utah, but there seems to be some confusion of the name of this facility - was it Provo Canyon School or Cross Creek programs ?

Covergaard 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Released from jail

For 'medical reasons', apparently. [1] this should probably be added to the article, somewhere or other. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see it's in there already. Ignore me. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Paris only served 3 full days in jail, the sheriff credited her with 5 days, since she technically surrendered late Sunday and was released very early Thursday.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marshalmoo (talk • contribs).

Word has it that she was released from jail due to a stress induced herpes attack that effected her anus as well as other parts of her body. If this is in fact true then it would make sense the she would not her herpes to be a matter of public record, which would be the reason the judge was not given her records covering the "illness". -76.164.33.196

That's from wwtdd.com, which is not a reliable source (especially since it says "not true"). DS 13:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

several hours afterward, the judged ordered that she appear in court on Friday at 9am, to determine why she was given preferential treatment and released by the Sheriff. Also, the Sheriff is in question as to why he defied court orders.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.107.241.219 (talk • contribs).

However, Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini conceded to the Associated Press that it is the Sheriff, and not the judge, who decides when inmates are released from jail.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.71.109 (talk • contribs).

Please input the fact that Paris Hilton will be doing her court appearance over the phone instead of gong in-person. I also think in regards to her legal problems there should be some clean-up on this article. Her violation of probation, and jail-term sentence should be put on a seperate article within the "Legal Issues" section.

Can anyone get her mugshot posted on her page?

Deletion of negative information

As I have been looking over the edit history of both the article and the talk page, it strikes me that any negative information whatsoever is being systematically deleted. Even discussion of including the fact that the media criticizes Miss Hilton have been deleted quite quickly. It seems that there are a group of people here who are intent on stifling any discussion about the issue, weather they be fans, or something else.

Can anything be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.79.17 (talk • contribs)

Criticism?

Being one of the most talked about celebrities, also leads onto her being heavily criticized by various (reputable) media outlets. Read any non-gossip news source and they usually slide in some derogatory remark about her perceived image and public behavior, So why isn't it even mentioned here?

(There was even a whole episode of south park more or less directed at her)

Most anyone that can recognize her name would acknowledge that at the very least she generates above average lampooning from the reputable press.

So, my question is: Why isn't there even the slightest mention of any of this in the article? I am simply saying that describing her relationship with non-gossip magazines is fact, and most certainly not personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.79.17 (talk • contribs)

We are IMHO talking Jante Law here, but I am afraid this will be a theory and not a fact...Greswik 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

She's going back to jail!

[2]. Newspaper98 19:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, though? I've just checked Google News and nobody else is reporting this, which seems a little odd. Exploding Boy 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

She gone! Check CNN, Fox, etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.186.70 (talk • contribs).

BBC News, too: [3] --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually considered moving this page to Publicity Stunts. However, that would've been a PoV move. So, I won't do it. GoodDay 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And CBC: [4]. Anchoress 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE

This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It is not for idle gossip about the subject of the article. Take that to a forum. I WILL be happy to block anyone who continues to violate this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Popular Culture

That section is clearly made to give Ms. Hilton a bad name in the media. It needs to be cleaned up, somehow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisonparadise48 (talk • contribs)

• The information in that section is accurate and sourced. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT 151.197.193.94 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• This section should stay as it is right now, if she has a bad name with the media, she has earned it.--148.210.144.13 02:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Recording Artist?

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.188.144.213 (talk • contribs).

Mugshot

Is it acceptable to upload her mugshot and use it in the article? —Viriditas | Talk 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have a freely-licensed image to be used to depict her. So it could not be used solely to illustrate Hilton. --Yamla 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, it's photo that's not copyrighted because it's available by to the public. It just needs to be put in the appropriate section.--Hourick 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the US, but certainly nowhere else as far as I know. Wish the individual wouldn't have bothered.77.97.248.216 14:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the mugshot is EXTREMELY relevant. It is definitely notable and is available to the public.WacoJacko 04:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs to go. BLP, it's abusive to her, and it's fair use. We have a free pic that shows what she looks like. Request admin to delete. Cornea 21:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps these "abusive" photographs of her would suffice: [5] [6] Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

License concerns may be valid, but I don't see that it's a BLP issue. Friday (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why plaster her mugshot pic all over? Its just to abuse and mock her. That other pic from Trebuchet doesnt need linking here. BLP everywhere. Cornea 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a WP:BLP issue... but if you have an issue, take it to the noticeboard. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It adds to the story about her being arrested. I really don't think it's to abuse and mock her, given the fact that it's just the picture with no attached abusive language. My understanding of law is minor, but wouldn't the picture fall under public images due to it being taken by the police department? Oglahai 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. My understanding of both images, and law is minimal, but I think that those kinds of images become public domain, or something like that. Hence the whole Bryan Peppers photograph thing. Like other people here are saying, this isn't intended to mock her, and it is certainly not intended to be abusive to her. It is simply intended to show a recent photograph of her, as she was when arrested. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with using this image. Exploding Boy 23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is not subject to consensus... removing. Cornea 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm not going to argue about whether it's appropriate to remove, but you appear to have a very strange idea of what the Fair Use doctrine is. "Fair use makes it illegal to use this image" is just wrong. Fair use is an exception to the copyright law. It doesn't make anything "illegal," any more than an insanity defense makes murder "illegal." I may tinker with your statement in the article so that it actually makes some sense.

In addition, I'm pretty sure that fair use discussions are subject to consensus--see WP:F; I'm pretty sure that everything short of WP:OFFICE is subject to consensus.--Superluser 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The uploader of that image has already uploaded at least one other image which was clearly falsely license-tagged (an image from a commercial website which clearly stated it considers its images all-rights-reserved but was tagged as GFDL), which was already deleted as a copyvio. I would imagine that, since most US states and cities do not release their work to the public domain, it is in fact not PD or free (and I can't conceive of how it would be GFDL). It's tagged for copyright investigation, but unless we can unambiguously determine that it is indeed in the public domain, it is not acceptable to use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If these images can be obtained via FOIA, then they are in the public domain. In fact, if I can find the phone number to the sheriff's office, I'd call them and ask them myself. Even better, if someone amongst us lives in California or around the area with which this is taking place and has knowledge of the "sunshine law" / "FOIA" equivalent in California and would write a request specifically for the mugshot to be used in this context, the entire issue would be settled for good. Oglahai 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, here is a link to the California public records legislation, which was from a direct link from the LA county sheriff's office. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270

Quoting from the previously mentioned link would lead one to believe that the photo is in the public domain due to it being defined as writing in 6252.(g) " 'Writing' means any handwriting, ... photographing..." In addition, the issue of the photo being in the public domain is handled in 6252.(e) " 'Public records' includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. 'Public records' in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor's office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975." This is, obviously, precluded if it would be an invasion of privacy, which I think is excluded due to the fact that the Associated Press and/or other journalistic entities are publishing the photo. Oglahai 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This photo pretty clearly falls under fair use, and no free-use photo can or likely will be available that conveys what this photo can. (The fact that it was taken by a government, and not for-profit, entity, strengthens this position.) BLP arguments on this simply aren't that persuasive; the picture expands the dimensions of the information available here. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved per CS GCS 6250 and 6252 (g). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, not quite so fast here! This is a public records law. That means that if you walk into a courthouse in California, there are a lot of different types of records they're required to give you if you ask. That doesn't mean that anyone in the world is free to copy, modify, and/or redistribute them, just that public agencies are legally required to tell you if you ask. And actually, the section specifically states that it does not release copyrights (see 6254.9, part e: " (e) Nothing in this section is intended to limit any copyright protections.") Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

While it may satisfy WP:NONFREE, I am finding conflicting reports on where the image was located at originally. Add to that, many sites carry the same image, and that there is a duplicate on Wikipedia that is a copyright-vio. I'm recusing myself from the image situation as it could very well be a copyright vio. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I called the LA sheriff's department and obtained the number for whom public records info should be directed ((562) 465-7817), but the officer told me that they were probably closed already. I'll be calling them Monday to obtain the information to whom the request should be sent to and/or to verify that the image can be used. If I'm successful, I'll scan and upload the letter as proof as well as maintaining a list of people to whom I've been in contact with about the matter. Oglahai 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good behaviour

What do you have to do and not do to get the reduction in jail time for good behaviour? There have been reports that she has pressed the medical emergency button continuously and made herself a nuisance to the jail staff. Would this kind of behaviour be bad behaviour instead of good? -Lapinmies 08:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Print Media

Here is some more copy for the popular culture section, if someone with add authority wants to add it.

Miss Hilton is frequently referred to in numerous media outlets as a "celebutant", a portmanteau word fashioned from the words "celebrity" and "debutant". Some publications, such as the New York Post, are less restrained, referring to her by the words "heir-head" (pointing out the fact that she is an heiress, and implying that she is an air-head) and "celebutard". Celebutard is a portmanteau word made up of the portmanteau word celebutant, and the offensive term retard. The Post claims their page six staff invented this word to describe Miss Hilton in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.205.185 (talk • contribs)

Speculation

"By affirmation of the original length of sentence, Hilton appears to have been punished for Sheriff Baca's decision. Upon hearing the sentence, Hilton shouted, "It's not right!" and started screaming for her mother, who was present in the courtroom. She was then escorted out.[47][48]. However, concern about Hilton's condition has led to her being moved to the medical wing of a Los Angeles jail Paris Hilton ordered to LA jail's medical wing instead of the original jail, but further details have as yet failed to emerge. If a medical condition is indeed established as fact, questions may be raised as to the refusal of the judge to hear the briefing, and indeed the overall motivation to specifically exclude an individual from an established prison management approach."

Comment: This section is just speculation, and in urgent need of a legal experts attention. It may be the way that Paris should have argued her special circumstances to not be jailed in the original sentencing - and hence the Judge would obviously be doing the right thing now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.1.141 (talk • contribs).

This is not what is indicated in the newspaper accounts. She's already received credit for 6 days, although she only spent three in jail. If she behaves herself, she'll still get time knocked off her sentence for good behaviour (by my calculations she'll end up spending 28 days in jail instead of 23, but I could be completely wrong).

As to her alleged medical condition, several newspapers hinted that it was a possible nervous breakdown. That's only speculation, but as the judge pointed out, the jail has top of the line medical facilities. As others pointed out, inmates who have very serious medical problems (including AIDS, those needing dialysis, cancer) aren't released to their homes; why should Paris Hilton be? Exploding Boy 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

The page is locked. Should we add the following external links on Paris's case? They are primary texts. Paris Hilton's DUI Charges (People v. Hilton) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton92606cmp.html Motion to Revoke Probation (Calif. v. Hilton) news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton43007mot.html Thanks www.latimes.com for giving the hyperlinks to the case in their website.Gaia2767spm 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We generally prefer secondary sources to primary sources as it leads to less interpretation, and as we have a multitude of sources for this information already there is no real need to add these. -Localzuk^(talk) 15:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The jail section is biased as hell in favor of Hilton

Can you provide reasoning for your claim? As far as I can see it is well sourced, so please elaborate.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

to the contrary. It is biased against her. Witness the "In an unexpected turn of events, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca's signed orders [...] reassigning Hilton [...] home confinement with an electronic monitoring device" passage. This is factually wrong - it was not unexpected at all, as the AP documents here (AP via sfgate.com). They say:

Q: Are other inmates usually released before they've served their full terms?

A: Yes. County jails are overcrowded, Baca said, and most misdemeanor offenders serve just 10 percent of their sentence. "Under our 10 percent early release program, (Hilton) would have not served any time in our jail or would have been directly put on home electric monitoring system," he said Friday.

Since the article is protected I can't correct that. Sombody else might be able to. Tullius2 17:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Medical problems

[7] If you go to the title in the article called "Sheriff hints at psychological problems" you will see that she apparently had psychological problems and was not taking her medication. Just thought this might help some. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal section

Please stop rearranging this section to make it appear that the Copyvio is part of the Jail sentence. It's not. Exploding Boy 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your most recent edit makes it appear that way. "Jail sentence" is now a subheading under "Copyvio"; look at the table of contents. It should not be this way. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(in response to Exploding Boy, after edit conflict with SpuriousQ) Actually, I think you might be confused here. With your version of the page, "Jail sentence", which deals with her violating her probation, is a sub-section of "Copyright violation", which deals with UB40. You can see this from the table of contents. This makes it look as if her jail sentence is related to the copyright violation, which it clearly isn't.

In the other version, "Jail sentence" is a sub-section of "Driving violations", which deals with her being put on probation. You can again see this from the table of contents. This version makes it look as if her jail sentence is related to the driving violations, which is correct. Meanwhile, Copyright violation is given its own section. This is the correct way. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is how it appears with your edit (I'm using indents to indicate subheading size):

Legal problems

Restraining order

Driving violations

Jail sentence

Copyright violation

Is it just my browser? I don't think it is, since I don't have similar problems on other pages.

This is how it appears with my edits:

Legal problems

Restraining order

Driving violations

Copyright violation

Jail sentence

Exploding Boy 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is how it is to me:

# 5 Legal problems

   * 5.1 Restraining order
   * 5.2 Driving violations
         o 5.2.1 Jail sentence
   * 5.3 Copyright violation

-Localzuk^(talk) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird. When I look at the TOC that's how it's shown, but when I look at the actual section "Legal problems" and "Jail sentence" are the same size. Exploding Boy 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Here's how it looks for me.

Exploding Boy's version

Firefox: TOC, section

Internet Explorer: TOC, section

Other version

Firefox: TOC, section

Internet Explorer: TOC, section

Man, that took ages. :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but why not put her copyright problem in the header. The article says her name, not that she was arrested for DUI. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using IE, and it doesn't appear that way to me. Exploding Boy 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Then there is something wrong with your browser I'm afraid. The page uses ==Title== for the top level section heads, ===Title=== for sub-headings and ====Title==== for sub-sub headings - which is how it is at this moment. Are you sure you aren't perceiving titles in different sizes (ie. trick of the eye?). Take a set of screenshots for us to have a look at.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

References and links needs cleaning

I was doing a random check on the links (specifically #8 regarding her sex video problems)and it's not accurate (the said link refers to the current troubles of Ms. Hilton). Someone needs to update these. I will start getting rid of the notes/links starting next week when it calms down a bit (doubtful), but if someone wants to lend a hand, I won't object. :)

Be careful with how you go about doing this. #8 is just a case of an outdated URL now redirecting to the homepage of New York Daily News. The actual citation is accurate (you can Google the author and article title and find traces of the original story). Here, it would be appropriate to remove the URL but not the entire citation, or better yet, find a reliable source that covers the same content but is still online. This may already be your intention, but I was a little worried with your wording ("getting rid of the notes/links"). -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I was going to just put a "Citation needed" on there, but I figured it wasn't that hard to get an updated URL, but I was hoping someone would volunteer to help me go through all of the links. I'm a little OCD about that. --Hourick 23:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to help as time permits. Unfortunately, I had to duplicate footnote 44 and 45 because I could not find the "quote" parameter that allows one to add quotes to a reference. Does anyone remember what it is called or if it is still part of the citation templates? —Viriditas | Talk 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic work

Just wanted to say that everyone is doing really incredible work here. I wouldn't be surprised to see this go FA soon. —Viriditas | Talk 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For the love of Christ, don't let this article go to FA. It's bad enough that we know her name. Xiao t 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't love Hilton anymore than anyone else, but listing her as a "convict" is just ridiculous. She's not a felon. I checked the bios of over 20 other celebrities who have spent short periods of time in jail (including Robert Mitchum, who did time in prison) and none of them are listed as a "convict". That is a stupid tactic. Raphaelaarchon 05:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I roughly agree, but where is she listed as a "convict"? --Allen 05:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This thing is moving so fast it was gone by the time I'd written this. It was added here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_Hilton&diff=137172074&oldid=137166285 by Halcyon 09 and removed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_Hilton&diff=next&oldid=137177752 by Mrschimpf - Raphaelaarchon 05:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

She is a convict. She has been convicted of a crime. Therefor; convict. Halcyon 09 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Admins, there is a use inserting profanity and hate speech into the discussion page. (see history) Raphaelaarchon 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Halcyon 09, while she may have been convicted of a crime, it is hardly one of the most defining things about her, so it does not need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Look at the article on Gary Glitter, and it says "is an English rock and pop singer and songwriter", rather than "is an English rock and pop singer, songwriter, and paedophile". Likewise, Bob Sapp has been in a few films, but the opening sentence doesn't describe him as an "actor", because it's not what primarily makes him notable. If all he'd done was act in those few films, he'd be borderline notable. If all Paris Hilton had done was be convicted of drunk driving, she wouldn't have an article.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with including sections about it in the article (indeed, I would be against there not being sections), and likewise there's nothing wrong with mentioning it in the opening paragraph. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NY Daily News reports on medical condition

They said she was afraid use the loo in front of the guards and didn't eat for 3 days.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/06/10/2007-06-10_poohoo_she_isnt_life_of_the_potty_.html