Talk:Paris Hilton

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

A day late and a dollar short

I see the disinherited part is already covered, but has it been ascertained if it was only Paris, or if everyone just got cut out in some way? TheKatK 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Photo in Article

The 'booking photo' in the article appears to have been vandalized. It looks like a herpes bump has been photoshopped onto Paris Hiltons Lip. Can someone please replace with the original photo?

24.8.106.182 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disinherited

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22157701-1702,00.html

According to this article, she has been disinherited by her grandfather. The article is unclear on whether or not he stopped with Paris, he might have just cut everyone off. TheKatK 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Conviction

xWhy does it not say she is a convicted criminal? It is a fact, so it should be labelled as so on the top part of the page along with the other adjectives describing her.

Because it isn't a defining point of her life. Many, many celebrities have convictions, but don't have the label 'criminal' as it is not a key point of their life. Why should she have this label?-Localzuk^(talk) 07:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

--Why shouldn't she have the lablel? It IS a defining point in her life, and as a person in the public eye, most certainly deserves it.

Generally, one would tend to apply "convicted criminal" only to a person who's been convicted of a serious felony. In the most technical sense, if you've ever gotten a parking ticket, you're a "convicted criminal", but such a statement tends to imply a serious crime. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But she didn't get a parking ticket - she got thrown in jail. You only get thrown in jail for serious offences.

President Bush is also a "convicted criminal". Is that how he should be referred to in his encyclopedic entry? The current hysteria over this woman should not influence the objectivity of the article. Cbreitel 13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes President Bush should be labeled as a convicted criminal in his entry, Paris Hilton too. Paris Hilton's offenses did cause a lot of uproar among the public, pretty much everyone who doesn't have a soft spot for her was mad.

I agree that "convicted criminal" should not be included in the intro, as it implies not only that she was convicted of a major crime but that she made a career of criminal activities, like a member of the mob or mafia, which is silly. She's just a party girl that got drunk and got in her car too many times. Dcoetzee 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I probably dislike Hilton as much as you do (or make yourself appear to), and I've been opinionated against some of the positive bias and "polishing" some users have been giving this article, but I don't believe she should have the "convicted criminal" label in the sense that you're putting it (taken from your dubya remark)- that's a bit too POV for me.

The label "criminal" is reserved for people who have commited felonies. She was convicted of a misdemeanor and not a felony.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

STD

can i add that she has herpes because it already a fact by now?

Even were that sourceable, I don't believe that would really be appropriate for the article. This isn't the supermarket tabloid page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That sort of information needs reliable sources in accordance with WP:BLP. Acalamari 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this section right here is a JOKE, lol. Don't get all wigged out about it guys.... Brad219 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is getting "wigged out"; we're simply explaining why this information cannot be added. Acalamari 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tabloids and blogs, where information like that comes from a lot of the time, is very unreliable. As I said above, information about STDs on biographies of living persons (in fact, any controversial material) needs reliable sources in accordance with WP:BLP. Acalamari 16:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I always just assumed she'd contracted a STD. It definitely should not form part of the article.

um the prescription for herpes meds on paris exposed. also paris exposed shoudl be mentions as the auctionees of the parsi hilton stuff tried to blackmail her for alot of cash to stop it try links from thesuperfical.com to paris exposed thing that have been published.

Paris exposed is not a reliable source - if another, reliable source discusses stuff from there we can discuss it here but not direct to the site (we have no verification that what they have was actually hers).-Localzuk^(talk) 18:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Parisexposed.com not a reliable source? She's filed a legal suite against the site owners, person who bought the stuff and the moving cmpany...In the court papers (freely available online and at the court house) she acknowledges that they were indeed her possessions in the court documents. You want more than a prescription taken from the storage unit that Paris acknowledges is hers in a offical court document? If they were posting the prescription for Valtrex, her passport, social security card, birth certificate, diaries, pictures, ect... that weren't of her she would be suing for liable, slander and defamation neither of which she is doing. She can't bececause she can't prove that the information was false and the person actually didn't obtain the information illegally. She can only sue for using her name and likeness for profit - which is what she's doing.

He may have offered to sell it to her first. I'm not sure I'd call it extortion for someone to offer to sell the stuff back to her after they legally purchased it. I've never saw a storage unit contract that didn't have a clause where you agree that if you fail to make payments that your property can and will be auctioned off. If she entered into an agreement with the moving company that allowed them to place the items in storage under their name then the purchase was legal. She should file against the moving company for violating her agreement - assuming that it was a written agreement.

Although, it is very much illegal to buy or sell a passport. Your passport is not your property it belongs to the government. It's clearly written in my passport.

QB

it is very easy to find many stories in legitimate publications discussing Paris' perscriptions for valtrex, a herpes medication. To omit unflattering information is preferential treatment not allotted to other (perhaps more legitimate) stars whose pages can be edited by anyone who can use google, and not restricted to allow access only by their publicists (under the guise of preventing 'vandalism'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.185.193 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The court documents would be reliable sources, the site itself is not a reliable source directly as we don't have any real reason to accept everything they say. Please can I ask you both to read our verifiability and reliable sources policies and guidelines. Then you may understand what we mean by reliable sources.

Also, we have to take into account the importance and notability of that information. In the overall picture of her life, is this particular piece of information important? Please take a look at the biographies of living people policy for information about the rules for articles about living people.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Definitely wouldn't want to Gitelmesomeofdat! (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

References

I don't think mentioning her second intimate adult-themed video is appropriate for Wikipedia. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Why mention, and describe the contents of, an unauthorized private adult video, the contents of which are based on hearsay? That's tabloid journalism, and since when is an encyclopedia all about reporting on unpublished private videos? Sure, many of you may say that it's part of her public persona (conjecture) and maybe even intentional (more conjecture). Think about this. I think in order to be the first go-to site, Wikipedia risks compromising its standards with entries like PH's. 162.84.167.75 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

I feel that the introduction;

Hilton rose to fame when an amateur sex video depicting her was leaked onto the Internet in late 2003. The release of the tape, later titled 1 Night in Paris (2004),

Is inappropriate to be placed in the introduction and contradicts a sentence taken from several paragraphs below;

In 2001, Hilton began to develop a reputation as a 19-year-old socialite, being identified as "New York's leading It Girl" whose fame was beginning to "extend beyond the New York tabloids".

She was indeed identified as New York's leading "it" girl before her sex video was leaked to the internet. She did not rise to fame due to her sex video. The introduction also insinuates her role in the Simple Life came about due to the sex video - this is said without sources because it is untrue.

I believe the sex video has been noted under it's own section "sex video" and therefore this should see to the removal of reference to the sex video in the first paragraphs.

124.182.118.132 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, make the edit. 62.49.68.222 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 

I'm not sure how. It'd be appreciated if someone else could remove all reference of the sex tape and the false claim that it led to her being an actress from the first few paragraphs 124.182.118.132 19:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

this is article is being niced up in a way that makes it impossible to tell the truth. to be most accurate you would gave to say paris gained worldwide noteriety after her sex tape was made public and not before. that is the most accurate way of describing what happened.no one had really heard of her internatinally until this happened so please take a reality check.124.149.125.208 11:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The quoted story comes from The Guardian, a London newspaper about two years before the sex tape surfaced. A simple search such as [1] shows your claim is false. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Paris on Larry King

On the show she stated that she did not do drugs, But a day after the interview a video appered on CNN,FOX,MSNBC,ECT showing her smoking a pot like substance....Dont you think people should add that into the article. User:MarkDonna

Your interpretation of what it was is not a reliable source, so unless we have something more reliable to go by, that couldn't go in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Hotel

How did a picture of a Hilton Hotel in Paris become the main picture for the article? Messy Thinking 01:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think someone stuck that there as either a joke or a very humorous misconception. DarthGriz98 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was vandalism. It was kinda funny, too. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism, and a joke, definitely. Acalamari 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not allowed to state my views on that image, it certainly wasn't harmful. Messy Thinking 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just glad I wasn't named the same way or I'd be 'Back seat of Grandpa's car' :O Jtdunlop (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition of extensive videographic evidence showing drug use

I have added what I believe is an unbiased synopsis of videos showing substance use by Hilton. I have removed previous conjecture that Hilton was indeed smoking marijuana and quote her or persons in the video instead.

It is rare, as of yet, that an iconic individual has diarised their alleged illegal drug use to such an extent, and I think the synopsises are encyclopedic and pertinent:

Authenticity: There is no doubt that because of her appearance, voice, and known acquaintances that the linked videos are of Paris Hilton; however, are they documentary rather than fictional? I would say because of the private and candid nature, the sexual groping, explicit substance use, unflattering language and image, and because at least one video was purchased from a foreclosure of Hilton's personal storage unit, that the videos are of documentary authenticity and therefore encyclopedic in nature. 67.186.245.63 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

um the other videowhere she is smoking from a pipe , not a ciggy...and photos.

There's a video of her in Amsterdam that I saw. She smokes a joint in a pot club and then does shrooms in a hotel room. She even displays the shrooms to the camera. But I don't think it needs to go in the main article. Who cares, most of Hollywood is doing drugs, it's nothing unique or encyclopedia worthy. The article is about 40 times longer than she really deserves anyway.

Unprotect this page

This page has been protected since 14th May. In this time, the protection has been completely unsuccessful at stopping vandalism; logged in users are more than happy to vandalise this page. Therefore, the semi-protection is worthless. Remove it. 62.31.67.29 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have the semi-protection removed, but the last time it was removed, it was restored within a short amount of time, as vandals hit the page. Like the George W. Bush article, this page is too vulnerable to vandalism when not semi-protected. No, the semi-protection has not been worthless; sadly, if this article wasn't semi-protected, we'd be reverting vandalism all the time. Acalamari 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The solution doesn't appear to me to be lowering the level of protection. Cbreitel 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an obscenely up-close picture of testicles which was (thankfully) just removed - yet another reason NOT to unprotect this page. Limeo45 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

the page was vandalised all day yesterday, while searching "paris hilton" in wiki would be ok when accessed from google, the page was dominated by a huge pair of testicles, then today when accessed from google the page just read "is a whore" how is the page vandilised in one form but not another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake Dove (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you accessed it from Google, that probably would have been the Google cache version. Acalamari 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A positive contribution to the article that can't go in due to protection.

I'm so pleased that the the semi-protection presumes I'm a vandal, despite having been editing Wikipedia for longer than most of the contributors to this page. Here's what I would have added if it were possible. Perhaps a logged-in user can add it, or perhaps they're too busy vandalising the page to notice. 62.31.67.29 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

On June 26 2007, Mika Brzezinski, the co-anchor of MSNBC's Morning Joe, refused to air a story about Hilton's release from jail. Her producer had consistently put the story as the lead, ranking over the other big news story of the day: Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana's breaking from President Bush on the Iraq war, which Brzezinski thought was more important. She attempted to burn the story's script on air but was prevented from lighting it by a co-host. Later in the newscast, she tore and shredded copies of the story. The incident later became popularized on the Internet and in the days that followed Brzezinski reportedly received large quantities of fan mail supporting her on air protest. im not really sure about you being considered a vandal, but well it is paris hilton, i regulary draw pernis or horns on the photos of paris....just not when they on the computer.lol like prez hilton.] i just wanted to mention thier is another really popular cartoon of all paris social set, like lindsay called super sluts or super skanks and they are super heros who get the job done using their skanky skills...lol does anyone know whtas ist called i seen it on the news so i thought it was worth mentioning.and all the youtube piss takes with paris lookalikes are funny.

Addition of natural physical apparence?

Should the fact that Hilton is a natural brunette and uses blue colored contacts to cover her brown eyes be added? 67.186.245.63 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

She is naturally blonde, not brunette. TheGoodSon 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Natural blondes do not color their hair blonde. QB

QB what do you base that false presumption on? Some natural blondes do indeed colour their hair blonde. There are several shades of blonde and some, say, golden blondes may prefer to have their hair coloured platinum blonde. Now this is at the moment rather irrelevent to the article. Mojaloxo 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Her mugshot certainly looks like she has mch darker roots than the rest of her hair. Surely some coloration has gone on here, and why wouldn't she? It all adds to the bimbo image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.148.208 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton nominated for 2007 Teen Choice Awards

The actress is nominated for this years' Teen Choice Award

I think it is time we have a separate section for awards won by Paris Hilton 59.93.113.144

References

that she has brown hair and eyes is important.also the shots of her coming out the jail where the first without her wearing her blue contacts in many years. something shoudl be mentioned about the popular use of the words celbuntee (like celb and debutante together)to decribibe her occcupation, as a basicly a popular person who flogs stuff who has really done much to earn thier celebrity , more of a social who has become famous and newsworthy becuse of her fmaous connnections along the lines of kimberly stewart jade jagger pixe geldof and other . the other word to describe paris is celbutard. is perez hilton mentioned???

also more shoudl be said about her reactions to the jail as there is a major media frenzy, maybe someone should do an article on "parisgate" if they wish to do it justice, especilayy to all the paris flogging and critisms that ended up on every news channel on the world just about.the world certainly did not do 23 days without paris. also the blogging about paris at the time was minute to minute and crazy.

Businesswoman?

since when has paris hilton been a businesswoman? This should be removed.

With a section titled 'Business Ventures' where she has entered into a variety of business deals, I would say this title is quite apt. What would prefer?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "celebrity". it's overstating her influence and status to call her a "businesswoman, singer, actress", etc. rich 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC) rich (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Releasing an album that she herself produced also barely qualifies her as a singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpeppe01 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How does one edit the opening paragraph in a Wiki article? I can't find answers in the Wiki Help section.

Update: I started cleaning up grammar and am trying to shorten this article to a reasonable length. rich (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Petition to Governor Schwarzenegger to pardon Paris

Hello. As the person who started the petition and who has met and spoken with Paris before, I wanted to contribute the following (see below) to the Paris Hilton page. Due to semi-protection, I can not add information into the article:

Can this please be added in:

"The petition to Governor Schwarzenegger was created and organized on May 5th, 2007 by Joshua Morales, a loyal fan of Ms. Hilton's who was upset by the sentence that Paris received from Judge Michael Sauer the day before on May 4th, 2007. "

[2]Paris Hilton Asks For Schwarzenegger Pardon (People Magazine May 8, 2007) Musicfanjm 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhapses enlighten us as to why you thought the governor should have pardoned her? I've been trying to figure that out ever since I heard about the petition.The Goat 21:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Citizens for a Better America

Does anybody here know about Citizens for a Better America's campaign against Paris Hilton? They made a petition and got the people of LA to sign it if they wanted Hilton to 'go away'. They also released a music video (search on YouTube 'Go Away Paris) and made a website (www.goawayparis.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Holy triple m (talk • contribs).

Yeah, you added it to the article about 15 hours ago. I'd say it's not really notable enough to be mentioned. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dropped from Warner Bros.

I have been hearing that Paris was dropped by Warner Bros. but just this past week they updated their website and Paris is still listed as an artist. I would just like to know what's going on with the label.Seth71 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

inhertiance

someone needs to include that paris has lost her 60mil inheritance

No shit. - Two hundred percent 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Loses Inheritance

This page needs to be updated as Paris Hilton just lost her $60,000,000 inheritance from her grandfather.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22157708-2,00.html

I've seen some real bunk articles on news.com.au, and wouldn't trust it as far as I can throw it until some other reputable source echoes it. - BalthCat 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TMZ says no, and I'd trust them long before I'd trust news.com.au. The original source seems to be this satirical UK paper -- sort of the equivalent of picking up news off the Onion. — mendel ☎ _ * _ 02:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The news.com.au article dates from July 29th. I can't find artilces about this from any major North American media (you know the ones who are hawks for this kind of celebrity scandal stuff?) such as NBC, CNN, etc. There's no way they have gone more than a day without noticing those articles springing up on entertainment and gossip mags. What's more likely is that TMZ is right, and these other publications have just fact-checked the situation and shown that once again news.com.au is crap. It's just that only TMZ finds the mistake newsworthy. If you want to write about the articles that say she was cut-off, sure, but until such a time as it is shown (reliably) that she has lost her inheritance the article shouldn't present that as fact. - BalthCat 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You might trust TMZ over news.com.au, but I'd be inclined to trust MSN over either of them. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... The MSN story you link to refers to Paris using the term "cum-jailbird". :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do you trust "ninemsn" whatever that is? It looks to me like it might be a local MSN affiliate who may just have assumed news.com.au was a reliable source and rewrote the article. - BalthCat 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

According to their meta description tag, "Formed in 1997, ninemsn is a 50:50 joint venture between the Microsoft Corporation and Australia's leading media company, Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL)." --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It was in the article but someone removed it.Yeago 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it again, under WP:BLP until we have some better confirmation of it.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar

I wanted to edit some simple mistakes such as "appeard" but I lack the powers to do so. Hopefully someone with the ability to edit this article AND comprehend basic English will do something about this. What's up Dr. Strangelove 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the spelling correction for you.[3] In a few days time you'll be able to edit this page, as your account will reach the "autoconfirmed" level. Acalamari 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Going vegetarian and openness to God,spirituality, and religious faith

Several online and printed articles have discussed Paris Hilton's going vegetarian, speaking for animals through PETA, appearing at green events (as in the one sponsored by Doug Moss, Publisher of E - The Environmental Magazine, and commenting on her (presumed) 'religious experience' (perhaps a presumed epiphany), her openness to God and to religious faith, and her determination to live differently and no longer to 'act dumb'. 24.61.16.25 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vegetarian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.16.25 (talk) <!-at- Template:UnsignedIP -->

Do you have any reliable sources to confirm this information? Acalamari 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A syndicated newspaper article talked about her attendance Doug Moss's ;'green building' soiree; Vegetarian.About.com shares references on the vegetarian practice and animal rights activities of Paris Hilton; and the locked Wikipedia article mentions Paris's talking about a 'religious vision' (from her jail cell) with a journalist. 24.61.16.25 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vegetarian

BeliefWatch: Paris Hilton Finds God - Newsweek Beliefs - MSNBC.comJune 25, 2007 issue - Three weeks ago, while preparing to go to jail, ... that she had "become more spiritual" and that God had given her a second chance. ... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19250245/site/newsweek/ - 53k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

God, Paris, and Second Chances - Prison FellowshipWhen Paris Hilton told Barbara Walters that she had "become more spiritual" and that God had given her a second chance, the press and most of my friends ... www.justicefellowship.org/article.asp?ID=6754 - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Paris Hilton says that she has found God in prison, meanwhile her ...God! Paris Hilton will never change! but we will see… everybody deserve a second chance right? smile. Posted by on 06/12 at 07:14 PM ... www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/paris-hilton-finds-god-parents-plan-party-201010/ - 62k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Paris Hilton Says Jail Term Has Given Her New Insight on LifeParis Hilton said she believes God has given her a second chance to change her ... the celebrity heiress said her jail term for violating her probation in a ... www.voanews.com/english/Entertainment/2007-06-13-voa12.cfm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Freed Paris gets back to being Paris - Boston.comParis Hilton got out of jail Tuesday and immediately got back to being Paris Hilton, ... about how God had given her a second chance and she was going to do ... www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2007/06/26/paris_hilton_released_from_la_jail/ - Similar pages - Note this

Paris Hilton: 'I used to act dumb. No more.' - Times OnlineWhat she has never realized is that parole IS the second chance. ... But some people do find God in jail, prison, or death row, though. ... www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1916807.ece - Aug 4, 2007 - Similar pages - Note this

Paris Hilton finds God - PeopleGod has given me this new chance. Even though I in jail I feel God has released me." ... Second, PETA deserves Paris Hilton, need we say more. ... people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1316410.php/Paris_Hilton_finds_God - 35k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Paris Hilton released from jail - USParis Hilton released from jail. Paris Hilton leaves the Los Angeles County Correctional Facility ... and of feeling that God had given her a second chance. ... news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1322500.php/Paris_Hilton_released_from_jail - 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

E! News - "Caged" Paris Finds God, Phones Walters - Paris Hilton ...Paris Hilton tells Barbara Walters in a phone call from jail Sunday that she was ... God has given her a second chance. What does God have to do with it. ... www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=fcb93b13-cd8f-47f4-a584-8049a5411beb - 198k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

24.61.16.25 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vegetarian

In the News: Paris is a vegetarian? - 8:04pmLink: Paris Hilton now a vegetarian. Photo courtesy of GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document ... vegetarian.about.com/b/a/256543.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Xinhua - EnglishParis Hilton now a vegetarian. www.chinaview.cn 2006-07-08 11:08:45. Paris Hilton hasn't eaten meat since meeting Heather Mills McCartney. The blonde star ... news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-07/08/content_4808028.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Paris Hilton Confirms She's An Anti-Fur Veggie - Entertainment ...Heather Mills has been accused of telling a few fibs in her time, but Paris Hilton has confirmed the former model has persuaded her to ditch fur and meat. ... www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=19507 - 46k

AHN | Paris Hilton "Grossed Out" By Heather Mills McCartney ...Becomes Vegetarian July 7, 2006 6:28 p.m. EST. William J Brown - All Headline News Staff. (BANG) - Paris Hilton hasn't eaten meat since meeting Heather ... www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004148984 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

brooklynvegan: CSS meet Paris Hilton & Courtney Love @ CoachellaI'm not sure which is the more serious sign that indie rock is dead -- that Paris Hilton went to Coachella, or that Brooklyn Vegan spent so much space ... www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2007/04/css_meet_paris.html - 81k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

JAILHOUSE GRUB GETS A BUM RAP / Paris snubs it, but inmate food ...In response, the jail introduced a vegan plan, Hirst said, ... maybe not as rich or as pampered as Paris Hilton, who just don't like eating from a prix-fixe ... sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/13/MNGH6QEGVB1.DTL - 49k -

24.61.16.25 02:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vegetarian http://www.people.com/people/gallery/0,,20050207,00.html - 16 photos of Paris Hilton appearing to read a book. MaynardClark 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) vegetarian MaynardClarkvegetarian

If there was a text version of riotous laughter that doesn't make you sound retarded, I'd be typing that right now. She's got a second chance? She's had about three of four hundred already - a chance not to release an album, not to star in any films, not to fill anyone's head with pretentious hollywood bullshit, and yet she still consistently made the choice to make a total fool out of herself in front everyone who can be trusted more than a smack addict. Sure, some teenage airheads bought some perfume because of her, but if you need an answer regarding her spiritual viability, or her sense in general, go and watch the hottie and the nottie. That film alone is proof that she should suffer the death penalty simply for who she is, let alone what she does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.170.115 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton on BitTorrent

please add : Paris Hilton on BitTorrent The Goat 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No. WP:SPAM, WP:EL. --Yamla 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just glancing at this article it's clear their should be a trivia section, combining pop colture, that p.diddy section, and pets. I'm not going to do it because I don't even like Paris, but those of you who do can easily make this article a lot better.

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections certainly would seem to apply here. If it's trivial, it really doesn't belong in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jail subsection

In my opinion, the Jail "subsection" needs at least a re-write, but better yet, delete the subsection and replace it with a Jail paragraph. As is, it's too wordy, too much minutiae, for an encyclopedia article. I won't make the change myself lest I be accussed of vandalism, but if there are others who agree the subsection is too long, maybe we can work on a re-write.Rosiestephenson 01:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you won't be accused of vandalism for making good faith edits, no matter how bold.--Agnaramasi 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No argument here, the section is way too long. Give it a go if you like.rich (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lies on Larry King

No mention of her lying on Larry King (regarding drugs for example)?---Ashujo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heiress?

I heard citation needed that she gave up her rights to the hilton fortune. Isn't it true then? User:Kushal_one --69.150.163.1 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

unprotect?

when will wikipedia unprotect this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.1 (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When people stop vandalizing it heavily; whenever it's been unprotected, it gets re-protected within a short amount of time. Like the George W. Bush article, this is a biography that's constantly at risk for heavy vandalism. Acalamari 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

superficial friends?

she is made fun of highly in "superficial friends", a series of parody cartoons with her as a lead character. However this reference has not been mentioned on the page anywhere. Tarabyte 11:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it actually her name used in it?-Localzuk^(talk) 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More parody

Totally Spies featured an episode with a character called Milan Stilton. Complete with small(robotic) dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.12 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We would need an external source saying that it was indeed a parody of Paris Hilton, else that would be drawing conclusions based on your own opinions...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing BLPC

I've removed the {{BLPC}} tag (if there are still problems, please re-add and/or post on WP:BLPN. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Criminal

In the first paragraph it should be mentioned that she is also a criminal; and also the category:USA criminals must be included, too. But it doesn't allow me to edit this page!!! --66.76.178.130 15:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

From Category: American criminals: "can claim notability solely because of the crime" - BalthCat 09:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention Paris Hilton's plastic surgery?

Why doesn't this article mention Paris Hilton's plastic surgery? Notable source IMDB mentions it. And here's actual pictures of the difference. And now here's a lot more links due to google. Discuss please!!! William Ortiz 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). —Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to be sure the article isn't ommitting it due to some BLP reason. William Ortiz 10:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The site you refer to as "here's actual pictures of the difference" is a bit tacky IMO. I suggest not using any reference to that site for BLP reasons. Wanderer57 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

California Law

Quoting the article:

"Driving violations

In September 2006, Hilton was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.08%, the minimum at which it is illegal to drive in California. "

1) -- "arrested and charged" -- isn't "charged" enough detail?

2) -- The wording of the last part is confusing. When first read, it sounded like you have to be at least 0.08% to drive in California.

How about this?

In September 2006, Hilton was charged with driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08%, the limit at which it becomes illegal to drive in California.

Wanderer57 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just "charged" is not enough detail because a person can be charged with a crime without being taken into custody, the ICTY does it all the time. Also, one can be taken into custody and subsequently released without any charges being laid. Therefore it is necessary to say that both of these have happened.SWik78 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cameo Disappearance

Quoting from article again:

"Moreover, Hilton made cameo appearances in several films, most notably Zoolander (2001), and Wonderland (2003), The Cat in The Hat (2003) and Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (2004) although her scenes were deleted from the film."

If the scenes were deleted, she did not make a cameo appearance.

Wanderer57 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Parodies

Unsourced items under "parodies" are being removed. Wanderer57 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about article

Does the item "a statue by Daniel Edwards entitled Paris Hilton Autopsy" in the "popular culture" section count as popular culture or as obscene exploitation?

Is it "notable"? Putting this item may give it more publicity than it deserves.

Comments please. Wanderer57 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I removed the item as the source was the exhibiting gallery. Wanderer57 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Now sourced to an arts magazine. Rude and crude but it's made quite an impression on the mainstream media. FCYTravis 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tinkerbell's Birthday - Help

If we don't get a source for Tinkerbell's birthday, it will have to be taken out.

Wanderer57 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - Crisis is over!

Wanderer57 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

re:removal of material

Congratulations everyone, we have managed to remove all (or most?) of the trivial stuff in this article... a major feat when you consider the subject! --ŴôôDéļf 10:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Irony: The topic just above this one...

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the irony. We removed Tinkerbell's sister's names. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"part-heiress"

Is "part-heiress" actually a word, and, if it is, what does it mean?

Wanderer57 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

South Park

Why is there no reference to the South Park episode Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset?

I'll add it to the "In Popular Culture" Section after work tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.17.86 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

More info on sex tape

I think there should be a bigger tab or headline on the page about her sextape, its barely mentioned here,but in real life, its what shes most famous for,most people didn't even know she existed untill newpapers started talking about a paris hilton sex tape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.177.179 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an article about the movie if people want more info. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, especially given the detail the rest of the article goes into.Originalname37 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article already being "longish" is an argument in favour of not adding more stuff. As I noted above, the movie/sex tape is already covered elsewhere in considerable detail.

Also, I think the BLP policy would come into this issue. That's how I see it. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can buy the BLP argument. The problem here seems to be the sentence: "Hilton became famous when she co-starred with Nicole Richie, the adopted daughter of Lionel Richie, in the Fox reality series The Simple Life, ..." which, as noted by 66.156.177.179, really isn't true. Also, it's not exactly the "longhish"ness of the article that makes is strange to leave something like this out. It's the really unimportant stuff that *does* get mentioned; a whole heading for "Activism" for example. If this were removed and the career section cut into about half (for most of the movies, the list at the end seems to suffice), I think we'd have a more reasonable article.Originalname37 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Paris Hilton article and the article relating to her video don't have much information regarding to the contents of the sex tape yet it is singlehandedly what has given her attention from the mass public. Why is everyone afraid to include the details? It did happen after all and even when she is interviewed, it is rare that she's asked about the tape. Let's not be biased nor naive, let's just expand on a very, extremely important segment on the Paris Hilton article. After all, Wikipedia is about knowledge and the truth must always be available even if it is ugly. I can do my original research and describe the sex video exactly as it is but I can't do that, however, if I edit the sex tape segment of the article and include citations and references to it to make it worthy, some Wikipedia editor deletes it and gives me some lame explanation as to why it isn't relative to the article. It really is annoying, like removing the Kennedy assassination from the article on Oswald! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.4.140 (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Education

In addition to listing the three high schools she went to and her GED, It might be worth mentioning directly that she never attended college (this is unusual for someone of her social status, right?) Here is a cite: http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-12-01-paris-interview_x.htm. Something like "and she chose to bypass college" at the end of the GED sentence.Originalname37 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is "normal" or necessary to record that a person didn't attend college (with the significant exception of academic careers.) For example, the article on Claudia Schiffer does not mention college or university.

If someone won an important academic prize without a college or university degree, that would be notable. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That sound fine, but then why the lengthy discussion of her high school education? (Claudia Schiffer's entry doesn't include that.) Originalname37 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I wonder if there is a wikipolcy on recording which high schools people went to. It is pretty specialized information. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Palm Awards photo is not an improvement.

This photo is not an improvement over the previous one (yellow dress), IMO.

It has a very cluttered background and was lit so as to create face shine. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

her first film role, though not a featuer film..

should we not mention her career as an amateur porn star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.143.47 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in those terms. The notorious video is mentioned and is discussed in a separate article. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

businesswoman?

Is Paris Hilton a businesswoman? I don't think it is correct to label Paris Hilton as a businesswoman! Outside the United States, she is known for her --- scandals. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

exactly, she is far from being proficient in the ways of business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratman (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This Article is RIDICULOUS!!

Its so biased, I think it should be COMPLETELY re-written. The part about "Parodies", EVERY CELEBRITY has parodies about them, its not like Paris Hilton is the only one. Also I think the music section should be expanded as well as the modeling and acting and animal rights (shes been an animal activist for a while now). I also think the section "In Popular Culture" could be added on tremendously too. I also think the 'Driving Violations' and 'In Popular Culture' could be combined.

- user: BSLILO —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSLILO (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If you can provide good sources for more information about animal rights activism, acting, modelling, or indeed other topics, we can work on incorporating more information into the article.

Can you be more specific about why you say it is biased? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section about parodies should be removed, since it is irrelevant and immaterial in the context of the article. You may be bold and remove it if you like, or wait for a consensus to form here on the issue. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

When I say this is biased, you could obviously tell the people had something against Paris, by overshadowing her success with negativity, although negativity does play a part in Paris Hilton's life, she has achieved much success and is easily one of the most famous women in the world based on her personal scandals, but also there has to indication of her music success and her plans to be a musician, it was several years in the making. But especially 'Parodies' needs to be removed, I also think the term Pop Culture Icon should be included

VH1's Pop Icon Questions Do they pass the one-name test? Yes Can you dress up as them for Halloween? Yes ; Short Skirt, long blonde hair, small dog in a doggy purse Did they blaze a trail in pop culture? Yes Did they create a signature character in pop culture? Yes Can you quote them, or their character, in 10 seconds or less? "Thats Hot" Did society imitate their sense of fashion? Hairstyle? Yes, big time Did “SNL” create a sketch satirizing them? Yes, and so did multiple movies Did someone write a song about them? "Paris Hilton [4] Was or is there merchandising or paraphernalia that bears their image? Perfumes, Jewerly, also 'Team Paris' Shirts Can they be connected to Kevin Bacon? Paris Hilton was in Pauly Shore Is Dead (2003) with Sherri Shepherd Sherri Shepherd was in Beauty Shop (2005) with Kevin Bacon

User:BSLILO (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007

For someone arguing that the article is ridiculous, you've fallen on your own sword with that last paragraph there. What the hell is all that about? VH1 does not dictate who is a pop icon, the public does. And last I checked, you need to be liked to be a pop icon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.170.115 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Popular Culture" in this article

Hi folks:

It is probably clear to everyone who has edited the pop culture section of this article lately that there is a wide range of opinion about what should be in it, and what should not.

The Wikipedia "guidelines" about this are not hugely helpful, in my opinion, so it is not a big surprise that we don't all agree.

The process of putting stuff in and taking it out causes personal "friction" between editors, which does not help working relationships. Also it tends to mess up the article.

I want to suggest we put our comments about the "pop culture" items in the talk, not in the edit summaries. Discussions through edit summaries are way too confusing.

I am pasting in the stuff below that is currently in the article. I'm put in some of my comments about it. Please add your comments. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ps I've divided it into paragraphs to make it clearer what the comments refer to.

Controversy

Hilton has been quoted as saying that she is the "iconic blonde of the decade"' and compared herself to Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe (a claim she denied in the May 2007 issue of Harper's Bazaar).

She will reportedly appear in the 2007 Guinness World Records as the world's "Most Overrated Celebrity".

• Is this "world's record" book out yet? If so, is Paris in the book? I think we should either confirm this report or drop it altogether. (wanderer57)
  • Yes, it is. And yes, she's in the book. I have read the book myself and I saw her. Also, here are some sources: [5][6][7] — Jhn* 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please update this statement with sources 77.125.154.220 (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In a poll conducted by the Associated Press and AOL, Hilton was voted the second "Worst Celebrity Role Model of 2006", behind Britney Spears. Critics allege that Hilton epitomizes the title of famous for being famous; echoing that sentiment, the Associated Press conducted what they called an experiment in late February 2007, trying not to report on Hilton for a whole week.

Exploitation

On May 11, 2007, a statue by Daniel Edwards entitled Paris Hilton Autopsy was revealed at Capla Kesting Fine Art in New York. Hilton is depicted by a clay model as dead, naked, and with her legs spread. The artist considers the sculpture a means of educating high school seniors about drunk driving.

• If it was up to me personally, I would leave out the above item (hideously bad art, in grossly bad taste, plus I think the story about "education re drunk driving" is just an alibi.) But it is not my decision. What do other people think? (w57)

Paris posed nude, covered only in gold paint to promote "Rich Prosecco", a canned version of an Italian sparkling wine. .

• Wine in a can!!! Nude, covered in gold!!! Now this is real pop culture. A photo is obviously required. (w57)

• • You want the photos? Too much for Wiki? naked Paris Cinemapress (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Parody

[[:Image:Paris in Jail.jpg|thumb|right|Tongue-in-cheek look at Paris's legal troubles as presented in spoof video "Paris in Jail: The Music Video"]]

Popular parodies of Paris Hilton include Paris in Jail: The Music Video which was released to the video-sharing website YouTube by California video company Omovies shortly after Paris was jailed in June 2007. Featuring a Paris Hilton lookalike and using the Paris song "Stars are blind" for inspiration, the music video achieved instant notoriety, garnering over three million hits in five days by poking fun at Paris' lifestyle, legal troubles, and subsequent incarceration. AOL named the video the number one spoof of the year. .

• Does AOL name a #1 spoof each year, or was this a one shot award? (w57)

• • AOL has announced a "spoof of the year" every year since AOL Videos went online.ManicAttack (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Announced here: AOL Videologist. It acts like a blog.... but is put out by AOL staffers about AOL news... unlike the usuaul "blog" which is usually a collection of opinions and comments. I have found a few articles that lead one to believe that AOL made a "spoof of the year" announcement in 2006. Cinemapress (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget Hiltons tendency towards intentional self-parody.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris in Jail

The paragraph about this video is being edited by several editors who have made similar edits to Omovies and other articles promoting this video. This is a possible WP:COI violation and I have opened a sockpuppet case against User:L.L.King for these edits. Other editors should scrutnize this section carefully for WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT and WP:COI violations. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What I see in the edits histories is a common thread: articles involving Paris Hilton... the Paris article, the Stars Are Blind article, the Omovies article, and others all connected through interest in Paris Hilton. That these editors seem to be one-tracked in their contributions to Wiki seems to be exactly in correlation to your own machete-like editing and opinion spreading. WHat you damage, they try to repair. What you destroy with poor editing, they try to rebuild. What opinuions you try to espoise, they intelligemntly counter. That they are trying to undo the damages caused by you is laudatory. And I see though from your own talk page that you have been repeatedly reminded that you are mis-using Wiki guidelines... that you are interpreting the guidelines to your own ends as if your own interpretations they were rule of law. I strongly uggest editors scrutinize ALL of your edits, deletions, and opinions very closely. You apparently have forgotten, if you ever understood, the spirit of Wiki. Wiki is not about you or your opinions. It is about the presentation of facts. Period. Now go ahead and open a "case" against me for standing up to you... for supporting those whom you rail against... for believing that truth shall overthrow petty tyrants like yourself. I wish I knew more about how to report bullies like you to whoever is in charge... for you have truly abused Wiki. ManicAttack (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just to draw attention to the policies Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Update: User:L.L.King has been blocked indefinitely for abusive use of sock puppets. A full list of those sockpuppets is available here. If you see any suspicious edits being made to this article, please comment on this talk page. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments about the editing process - personal opinion

Hello Folks;

It seems to me that some of the comments and accusations, made above and on user talk pages about other editors, are very heavy-handed. There are differences of opinion about how much trivia and pop culture is appropriate in this article.

This difference of opinion is NOT unique to this article. It has been argued repeatedly.

This difference of opinion is NOT due (in my opinion) primarily to editors being ignorant or stubborn or whatever.

- - -

Some suggestions follow about ways to try to reduce the tension around this issue.

- - -

First, there is a LOT of GREY AREA in Wikipedia about including trivia and popular culture in articles.

On one hand, putting in all the material of this sort that can be found about Paris Hilton, and other well known people, leads to large articles that are hard to read. It is very important to keep the readability of the article in mind. More important, I think, than including every bit of verifiable trivia that can be found.

On the other hand, there is obviously interest in this information, at least among some encyclopedia editors and users.

Within Wikipedia policy, there is MUCH uncertainty about how much "pop culture and trivia" should be included in articles. Too much uncertainty, in my opinion.

I think the recent editors of this article, on both sides of the "arguement", are all struggling with the same uncertainty.

I have three suggestions.

1) Read the policy on Biographies of Living Persons (if you haven't already). (Note the strong emphasis on "get it right" and "if in doubt, leave it out". This policy is both for courtesy and for legal reasons. LINK WP:BLP

2) Read the WP:POPCULTURE article. This gives more background.

In the talk page of this article, you will find a section called "Verifiable evidence of significance ??" Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" articles#Verifiable evidence of significance ??. I started this section because I was trying to figure out the whole pop culture thing. I think you might find the replies to my question from "Father Goose" interesting. (Father Goose has been involved in Wikipedia much longer than I have.) The discussion continues in the next section of the talk.

3) It is of course possible to put in a complaint about another editor, but complaints are not as useful as a discussion. Also they are not taken seriously unless there has first been a REAL effort to try to work out the problems with the other editors through discussion.

A proper "discussion" of what to include in an article and what to leave out needs to be carried out on the talk page of the article. The "edit summaries" just don't allow for a real discussion.

It is best to be specific. For example, you might pick one or two insertions or deletions that you disagree with, quote them in Talk, and put in a note saying why you think each one should be included or excluded.

Also in these matters, remember that there is no huge urgency involved. If some bit of pop culture is left out of the article for a few days while it is discussed, that is better (under the BLP policy) than leaving it in when it really should NOT be in.

I hope some of this is helpful. Please let me know. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ps Best wishes for 2008!

The "art exhibit"

I temporarily deleted the report of the self-proclaimed art project to "oppose drunk driving". It contradicts itself - stating an opening date in May and citing a ref dated April that indicates the exhibit has opened.

Unreliable information, deleted under BLP policy. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of the three references as being confusing, if not exactly unreliable. A better reference might be Celebrity Mound, dated April 27, 2007, which has full details as well as images of the statue. But if one does not dig too much further, one gets confused by a Reuters article, dated May 10, 2007, which states how "The sculpture was to go on display Friday in Brooklyn". Both pieces of information, though contradictory, are correct. Further in the Reuters article one can find "The sculpture Paris Hilton Autopsy by sculptor Daniel Edwards is seen at the Capla Kesting Fine Art studio in the Brooklyn borough of New York May 9, 2007". The Reuters article was seemingly released after the Capla Kesting exhibit, and speaks of another showing in future tense. Culture Kiosque, dated May 2, 2007, speaks about the opening as slated for May, with a schedule of events showing a press reception for May 9, an opening reception for May 11, and a public reception for May 12. Also offered in this article was a link to the Capla Kesting Fine Arts Gallery website. There one can find specific information in the section "Daniel Edwards - Paris Hilton Autopsy" that confirms both the April amd May dates. An April 26 date is given for a (limited) public unveiling and announcement by the artist. This gives the Celbrity Mound April 27 date credibility and confirmation. The May dates represent the time span of the New York exhibition at Capla Kesting... with the Reuters representative being part of the May 9 press reception so as to be able to write an article that then gets released on May 10 that can then refer to the "future" showings of May 11 or 12 when it was opened to the public. Interestingly enough, pictures from the 3 different but related receptions may be found on Flickr. So with new references in proper order and set in proper context, the deleted informations might go back. Cinemapress (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed contentious information

Once again, I have removed the wording in the 2nd sentence of the article about the so called "self made film", based on BLP policy.

Repeatedly stating in edit summaries that something is a "FACT" or a "Fact!" does not make it so.

I do not agree that the reference given supported the wording that was there.

Furthermore, even if it did, putting that statement in the prominent position it was in is not appropriate.

If you think I am wrong on this, please make a case here rather than changing the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Paid To Attend Her Own Birthday Party

Paris was reportedly given $200,000 to attend her 24th birthday party at the Pure nightclub in Vegas.

Paris Was Paid To Attend Her Own Birthday Bash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.218.34 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

References needed

QUOTING article: " The leak of a four-year-old homemade sex video, called 1 Night in Paris, of Hilton with her then-boyfriend Rick Salomon a week prior to the premiere of her Fox reality series The Simple Life attracted worldwide attention in late 2003."

Since there is no reference, why is it "The leak" rather than "The release"? Why "homemade"? Was it really "a week prior"?

Some ref material is missing on these details. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Editors are attempting to subtlety insert unpublished synthesis, claiming that 1 Night in Paris was a publicity stunt for A Simple Life. They have previously stated this belief in earlier edits made to this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Maybe someone here would like to use. :D

{{User Paris Hilton}} — Jhn* 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This user loves Paris Hilton.

Basement-dwelling spotty kids penetrated the Hiltoness.

The article does not contain the work hacker. How is this possible? Her T-Mobile communicator was cracked in 2005 and the hax0rs got hold of personal phone numbers for about half of the unitedstatesian celeb clicque population. A lot of nude (genital) photos and the like went onto the net as a result of that. Five people were put to jail for 10 months after prosecution. Isn't all this noteworthy? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

this is relevant how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake Dove (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Celebutante??

From the first sentence of the article: "an American celebutante and businesswoman."

Ms Hilton is nearly 27. She may have been a debutante once but is not now.

The word is silly and close to meaningless. I'm changing it to celebrity. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton is a celebutante. In fact, the word is coined for her. I don't see any reason why you should feel a widespread media term to be "silly and meaningless" except for your own ignorance. I'm changing it back. I took a look through the history and I noticed quite a few troubling edits. I'll proceed to examine them and revert if necessary. Thanks.Herunar (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Misses One Quality Not Handed To Her

She really is a character if you think about it. She's got a sense of humour about her place in the universe (which she never asked for, it's just an accident of birth). And she has the ability to laugh at herself and parody herself. I think she deserves credit for that.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've found more qualities not handed to her-- (I wrote the above post). The line of fashion wear that she designed-- I've read articles detailing how hard she works on designing and marketing her work-- I must therefore admit that there is even more to this young lady than she is often given credit for (and I was guilty of this too).

24.8.106.182 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tammin Tropez Is The Australian Paris Hilton

Australian transsexual model and pop star "Tammin Tropez" was given the title as being Australia's Paris Hilton after attending a recent awards show in Sydney, it is believed she was under the influence of alcohol.

This is her private myspace, i don't know if shell add you, but you can try. www.myspace.com/tammintropez

I also think shes releasing an album later on this year (?????) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.41.4 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth Including?

Quoting the article: "Hilton was related by marriage to Nicole Richie's godmother, Nancy Davis, when Nancy's brother, Greg, was married to Kim Richards."

Is this information important enough to be in the encyclopedia? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sentence about sex tape and inheritance in lead.

It cannot be denied that the controversy surrounding the sex tape and the potential heritance are the main sources from which most readers know about Paris Hilton. I don't think there's a dispute in this, so I don't really understand the reasons that were given for its removal. I'm adding it back since it was so before a group of editors took over this article and engaged in a massive edit war. I'm also adding a sentence about her father donating her estate away, which is important concerning her inheritance. Herunar (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper 360

"CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 discussed footage obtained from the website which features Hilton using several homophobic and ethnic slurs.[35]

"The reference at the end of this sentence does not work now. Is there another source, or different code that leads to the original source? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Too Long??

I see notes above that the article is too long.

Please keep in mind that this is a very heavily accessed article. A lot of people are looking for information about Ms Hilton. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit re Barron Hilton

I'm not sure what happened on my recent edit. I think there was an edit conflict.

I wasn't trying to remove a link, just to take out Barron's 2nd name as unnecessary. Hopefully it is okay now.

Turning to a related question, is Barron notable enough to warrant an article? Just thought I would ask. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

100 Bottom Films in IMDB

I am again removing the item about Paris Hilton having been in multiple films that are in an IMDB "bad" list. This is to explain why.

1) It is not clear that the IMDB bad list is an objective film assessment. The stated information may well be the result of voting by people who are generally negative about Paris Hilton.

2) As I noted in my previous edit summary: "This factoid in this section (the as an actress section) implies that the poor results of the three films are due to Paris Hilton. "

The reference kindly supplied by NiggardlyNorm is a Variety review of one of the films, (The Hottie and the Nottie.) It suggests differently. The reviewer did not like a lot of things about the film and says, quote:

"Paris is far from the wrongest thing about a movie offensively crude in concept and doubly so in execution."

I'm removing the item due to concerns about BLP policy.

Here is the item for reference: Four of the five films in which Hilton had more than a cameo are in the IMDB Bottom 100.

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re reverted edit in lead

I reverted the edit that put this into the lead: "and is an heiress her father's company, Hilton and Hyland Real Estate. Her Grandfather, Barron Hilton, announced that 97% of the $2.3 billion fortune he amassed through the Hilton Hotels chain will be donated to charity.[1]"

I think there are multiple problems with this. In no particular order they are:

1. the reference given leads to this message: "The page you are seeking has expired and is no longer available at MSNBC.com." (the fact of the 97% donation is in the MSN page as a headline but the story is not there.)
2. Heiress means a female heir. Here is a definition of "heir" -- "A person who inherits or is entitled by law or by the terms of a will to inherit the estate of another." (definition at answers.com) Isn't it presumptuous to say she is an heiress to the company, without knowing the terms of the will? Her father is alive and well at last report. This is just speculation about what Paris might inherit, and I think it is inappropriate under BLP policy.
3. Naming the Real Estate company, while perhaps not against Wikipedia policy, is not normal practise. It is not important enough info to put in the article lead, or in the body of the article for that matter.
4. The information about Barron Hilton's announcement is already in the body of the article. There is no need for it in the lead.

Based on these concerns, I have reverted the edit. If you wish, I'll be glad to discuss further here. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Editor Golbez reverted while I was writing the above. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC) )

I have deleted information added earlier today. I'm sure it was added in good faith. However, it would be more in line with the BLP policy to discuss the issues here first.

There are (at least) two issues involved. How much of the information is appropriate in the article, and how much of that is appropriate in the article lead.

The announcement of a huge donation to charity was made - that seems well documented. The conclusions being drawn from the announcement are mostly, if not wholly, speculation. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Each point:

A quick search in google news turned up this: [8] which discusses Barron Hilton pledging 97% of the fortune to charity. If a source doesn't respond you should search for a new one, or add an fact tag, especially on something as widely talked about in MSM as this particular fact.

The fact that she is an heiress is commenly discussed by MSM. Do a quick search of google news for 'Hilton Heiress' and you'll get a whole host of articles. So, the inclusion of the fact that she is an heiress isn't a contentious one.

One of the things about Paris Hilton is the fact that she started off only being famous for being rich and the heiress of the Hilton fortune. So including mention of what that fortune is should be seen as important to the article.

Finally, a lead should contain a summary of all the major points in the article. It should be able to stand on its own as a mini article. So, whilst I haven't looked at the information you are discussing directly, we have to look at the information in the context of whether it is a major point in the article and whether the lead could stand on its own.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Localzuk: I appreciate you responding to the four points I raised. I'll try to do the same.

• I did not look for another source (or put a fact tag) as I considered there were three other reasons the item was not appropriate in the article lead.
• My point is that speculation about how much a person might inherit and how much that might change because of an announcement is only speculation, and should not be part of the article. There was a lot of speculation and it can be found on the internet. That doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. The last paragraph of the "Early life and background" section covers the story in a responsible way without speculation.
• Naming the real estate company? Not normal Wikipedia practise, IMO. Also do you have reliable sources re the extent of the fortune involved? The company you think significant enough that it should be named may be just one of many.
• The latter part of the second sentence of the lead currently says: "is an heiress to the Hilton Hotels chain." This indicates there is "money in the family", to use an old expression. Details of the announced donation do not merit being there as well as in the body, IMO.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I'm with Wanderer on this: I think the charity quote should not be in the lead. At the very least, it's adding WP:UNDUE weight to a point that's peripheral to Paris Hilton. If you want to put it on Baron Hilton's page, that's fine, but it's not a main point here. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". In this case, there is nothing else in the article that's related to Baron Hilton's giving to charity, so it shouldn't be here.

Hope this helps. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton is not an heiress to the Hilton Hotels chain

This page states "she is an heiress to the Hilton Hotels chain." This is incorrect.

1. The Hilton Hotels Corporation is owned by the private equity firm Blackstone Group. Barron Hilton sold it to Blackstone for $26 billion and will receive $700 million from the sale. There is no information available that indicates Paris' father, Rick Hilton, will receive proceeds from the transaction or that he has a current stake in the corporation.

1. Barron Hilton has announced he will donate 97% of his fortune to charity. That leaves $63 million that will be inherited by his descedents. Assuming his will divides equally, that is approximately $8 million per child.
2. Rick Hilton's net worth is estimated at $300 million by an unofficial Paris Hilton website. There is no information about how this number is calculated.

Therefore, in a best-case scenairo, Paris Hilton is set to inherit part of her father's fortune and small multi-million dollar part of Barron Hilton's fortune. Obviously, we do not know if this is the case. She is not, in any shape or form, an heiress to the Hilton Hotels chain. That chain is held by the Blackstone Group. Mft1 (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to the statement: "she is an heiress to the Hilton Hotels chain."

Working from a dollar number from an unofficial website and making guesses about wills is an excellent example of basing an article on inappropriate information. As Mft1 says, "Obviously, we do not know if this is the case."

The "heiress .... $300 million" statement is speculation and should be removed under the policy on biographies of living persons. I'm removing it. It can be discussed here but please do not reinsert it without a good case. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Champagne/Sparkling Wine

The EU rulings under the PDO state that Champagne can only be created in the Champagne region of France, in Europe. Rich Prosecco is made in Italy, so falls under these rules. Secondary to that is the fact that the USA respects that Champagne can only be called as such when produced in Champagne the region, unless it is a longstanding domestically (ie. in the USA) produced product. Rich Prosecco is not produced in the USA. All of this info is available on the Champagne wine page.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RICH® Prosecco - sparkling wine or champagne?

It seems to me the discussion in the edit summaries of US trade agreements is Amerocentric and irrelevant. RICH® Prosecco is an Italian product marketed internationally and the company website describes the product as "sparkling wine" and "Italian sparkling wine". (Though it says "champagne-like" at one place.) I'm changing the article back to "sparkling wine".

It's not clear if the specific date of December 12, 2007 is relevant. A company press release from August 2007

http://www.richprosecco.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=184&Itemid=11ress

talks about Paris Hilton's involvement in promoting Prosecco. I made this a bit less specific.

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ps Has anybody tried this product? How is it?

I haven't. I dislike wine :) -Localzuk^(talk) 17:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of Kelly Rowan

Her article pic reminds me of Kelly Rowan from the OCPunkymonkey987 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New Album

We need more information on it NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.90.145 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

Whats her ethnicity? Nayo1163 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Predominately German, but also has some Norwegian blood. That is about it. So in other words, she is basically of German descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodson (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Answering Masterpiece2000 : Well, I just think it could be interesting to add this to the article since every articles on wikipedia have at least a sentence on the person's ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayo1163 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "every articles on wikipedia have at least a sentence on the person's ancestry." Is there a factual basis for this statement? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but it's true that most biographic articles (not stubs) have at least a sentence or two on the person's ancestry. It is a pretty notable inclusion. I don't think any actual data is available here, but common sense will suffice. Herunar (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made my point in other venues that a person's heritage is interesting and appropriate. We <know> that she has German and Norwegian heritage from the marriage of Conrad Hilton (whose father was born in Norway), and his German mother. Paris has Italian blood from her mother's side as well. Why is this not mentioned? Or more speciically, why is she a "German American" and not Norwegian or Italian? Especially since her father (Richard Hilton)and the remaining family (Hilton Family)are so prominantly mentioned as German/Norwegian ancestry. So that means only the German ancestry is mentioned? They are as generationally displaced from Germany as they are from Norway or Italy. The person moderating this article is either biased, absurd or starstruck. Ken L (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hilton family has been in the USA for quite a while.

According to the article about her great grandfather, Conrad Hilton, he was born in New Mexico Territory, now New Mexico, in 1887. He was educated at the New Mexico Military Institute and at the New Mexico School of Mines. He was a Republican representative in the first legislature of the newly-formed State of New Mexico. Shortly after the United States entered World War I, he enlisted in the U.S. Army.

Sounds pretty American to me. And that was 100 years ago.

(Does anyone not know which country the U.S.A. was at war with in World War I?)

If someone wants to tag Paris Hilton as German-American or Norwegian-American, or Italian-American, or Irish-American after her great great great great great grandmother from Dublin, and they have decent evidence to refer to, and they think it is worth mentioning, then go right ahead, write up the information and put it in the article (or in the talk for discussion).

IMO, if the ancestry link is important enough to be noted in a category, then the information is also important enough that it should be in the article. Also, the category info doesn't have a recorded source unless it is in the article.

Wanderer57 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've already a brief note about one aspect of this issue at Talk:Paris Hilton#The Categories Game. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Several more categories have been added by user Linkinaha (talk · contribs) for German/Italian/Irish ancestry. Based on the apparent consensus of this discussion I have removed them. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the extra categories a second time and invited user Linkinaha (talk · contribs) to discuss the need for additional categories here in the talk page. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been looking at the policy about categories and discovered that this article is misusing ancestry categories.

For example, the category German-American is described as:

"American citizens of full, predominantly or half German ancestry or national origin, including U.S.-born children of German immigrants, Americans who have at least one German parent or people with dual citizenship (German/American)."

The other thing is that categories are supposed to be documented in the article.

"An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate." (from Wikipedia:Categorization)

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry 2

I removed the ancestry categories. The categories are not meant to be used to document every component in a person's ancestry. For example, "German-American" means an American of predominantly German background.

A person cannot be predominantly German, predominantly Italian, predominantly Irish, and predominantly Swiss at the same time.

There is no information in the article to support using any of these categories.

If anyone has evidence of a predominant ancestry, other than American, to support using one of these categories, please provide it in this Talk page. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex tape needs expansion

Almost seven paragraphs devoted to her drunk driving scandal. And then another entire section is entitled "controversies." Yet, strangely enough, only two sentences are devoted to the celebrity sex tape. Granted, there is another article devoted to the video but that does not mean that we cannot expand this section a little bit more as countless other articles do when there is a separate article. Right now, it's conveniently (deliberately?) buried in the last line of the "personal life" section. Journalists have written numerous articles analyzing the celebrity sex tape. Their reliable third-party analysis should get a little bit more attention here. Not a lot. But a little bit more to match the notability within her life (which is quite substantial according to a LexisNexis search on Paris Hilton). To downplay the significance of the celebrity sex tape would be strange given the amount of coverage it received in the reliable third-party press. Regards, J Readings (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Racist Remarks

Why no mention of Paris Hilton's remarks on race? She appears to mock African-Americans and Jews during Sister Sledge's We Are Family song in a New Years Eve video provided by ParisExposed.com which can be seen here http://www.spike.com/video/2820174. I've read claims from blog posters that the voice on the video isn't even hers. Hilton's publicist Elliot Mintz confirmed to the NY Post http://www.nypost.com/seven/02032007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm it's authenticity saying she had obviously been drinking. The alcohol excuse didn't work out to well for Mel Gibson. :-) Synchaser (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok my bad. I didn't see the mention of the alleged racism video under Personal life which I expected to find under the Controversy section. See Mel Gibson's wiki entry. I also neglected to read the archives which did mention this issue. There is a link to the Anderson Cooper video discussing the tape but it doesn't play because it wants me to sign up to CNN Pipeline. Though initially free it's a pay per subscription service. I erased this section under her personal life and put a new one in under Controversy. Also Provided a direct source to the video at spike.com as well as a source to her publicist Elliot Mintz comment of the video in the NY Post. Synchaser (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why so little mention of the sex tape?

Only two sentences buried in the article discuss the sex tape. Why is this? The leaked sex tape was what made her famous, and it should at least be mentioned in the opening paragraph. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.62.139 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Paris to run tech company??

There are rumors that Paris is going to buy a listed tech company and run it as CEO or chairman. Can anyone confirm? There are some natural ones for partnering with the family hotel business. Rumors have it that it's a tech company with ties to entertainment. This would be fabulous if true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeJump (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless some sources can be found to verify this, it can't be added to teh article. Acalamari 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

spoiled bitch

whys there no comment about her in pop culture as being a spoiled,ego-tistical,selfcentered bitch,such as in south park celebrity deathmatch american dad family guy the simpsons etc.. Luke12345abcd (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)