Talk:Paris Hilton

 This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Paris Hilton. It is not for discussion of Paris Hilton herself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Paris Hilton is a "good" or "bad" person; or finding out what unnecessary information this does not help in improving Wikipedia.
Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.

Archives
December 2003 – December 2005

Tinkerbell (dog)

There has been a proposition to delete the article on Tinkerbell, Paris' dog. If you want to join the discussion it is linked here. Sliggy 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Tinkerbell (the dog) should be included in the article about Paris Hilton. The dog is associated with Pars Hilton. Justinkleiman 06:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Justin

So are you saying all things that associated to a person should be in just article. Tinkerbell should not be merge in the article, first Paris is not Tinkerbell, second the dog is popular.

I also think we shouldn't. The article on Paris is big enough, moreover Category:Famous dogs exists. Brandmeister 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• The result of the VfD linked here was to merge Tinkerbell (dog) into this article and that is exactly what we should do. Johntex\^talk 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

DON'T!!If we already have a famous dogs category with dozens of dogs, WHY EACTLY do we have to put tinkerbell on paris' page? ANSWER THIS Lil Flip246 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please quit shouting. The reason for the merge is that the Tinkerbell (dog) article has been found to be not sufficiently notable for its own entry. It was decided by consensus at articles for deletion that the content on that article should be merged here. Johntex\^talk 00:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose merging the articles, for the simple reason that Paris' article should be about her, not her dogs. As for the notability requirements, Tinkerbell is just as notable as nearly every other animal who has a WP article, if not more (how many in the famous dogs category are published authors and have their own IMDb page?).--130.65.240.74 10:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Tinkerbell. The dog is famous because Paris Hilton owns it. That's all. --Red-Blue-White 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: articles on presidential pets, Hitler's dog, and other famous pets have never been challenged despite the fact they are only famous because of their owner. At least Tinkerbell has become famous by her own right, with a televison show, books, etc. --Fallout boy 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By her own right? If you or I ghost-wrote a book "by" one of our pets, would anyone buy it? I've had some pretty out-of-the-ordinary pets in my life, but I can guarantee I'd never get a book deal for it. Get real - Tinkerbell is famous by her owner's right. There's no difference between that and Hitler's dog. -Kasreyn 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Even it's Paris' dog there's no need to merge the dog to the article. Paris is not Tinkerbell--Hotwiki 12:03, 26 January 2006 (UT

By that logic, Weird Al's dog Bela deserves her own article, too. Bela is responsible for the title of Al's album Poodle Hat, she appears on the album cover, and her barking can be heard in one of the songs on that album. However, a wikipedia article on Bela would be ridiculous, and Tinkerbell being an article apart from the Hilton article is just as silly. While we're at it, the presidential pets should all be merged into a single article, there's no reason for any of them to have their own articles either. Ugliness Man 12:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, Paris Hilton has already chucked the dog, she has a new one, so yeah I agree with Hotwiki, delete it. -Summerwind

Reports of her having dumped Tinkerbell are only tabloid rumors at this point.--Fallout boy 09:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I was originally planning to vote for merging the dog article but I had no idea the dog is now a media personality in its own right. As deeply frightening as that is, a reluctant vote for keep. --Rhi 17:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Tinkerbell into the Tinkerbell page to keep this page from getting any longer. Maybe in a couple years we can delete the mutt when its no longer notable. Thatcher131 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge it or delete it (Tinkerbell). It's a totally idiotic article, Useless and of no interest!

How about...

"unwitting porn star"?  ;-) -Kasreyn 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not funny--Hotwiki 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny or not, it's a lot more legitimate reason to even have an article than all this "entrepreneur" and "singer" crap. The reason the world knows her name is for the sex tape, not for anything she's done in broad daylight. There's a difference between fame and notoriety. For instance, Wil Wheaton is a lot more famous as "Wesley" from Star Trek than he is for anything he's done since, much to his dismay - but he can't change that, it's simply the nature of being a celebrity. The nature of Paris Hilton's notoriety is that it arose from the sex tape. I think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to point out the specific things that brought a celebrity into the spotlight - whether that spotlight is white or night-vision green. :P -Kasreyn 00:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with nothing you said. "Unwitting porn star" lol it only means that you hate her--Hotwiki 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hate? Why would I waste my energy hating someone as unimportant as her? I may have chosen to say it in an ironic way, but I meant what I said - the only reason so many people even care about her is because of her sex tape. From the viewpoint of wikipedia, it's the most important detail of her life. -Kasreyn 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unimportant as her? I see --Hotwiki 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Model, actress, entrepreneur

This section begins "in recent years Hilton has gained recognition by appearing in television, movies, commercials, and sex tapes, as well as modeling". Has she actually appeared in multiple 'sex tapes'? To my knowledge there was only the one - and in any case she isn't actively working as a porn star. I'm not sure about the gaining recognition part either. How about removing the sex tape reference and reword to something like: "Hilton has appeared in..."--Rhi 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(I didn't add that wording). It could be argued that much of Hilton's recognition stemmed from the sex tape. While I'm not aware of more than one tape being released (though I believe she's admitted to making multiple tapes), I think we should keep the information about the single sex tape in there. --Yamla 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm already quite used to being shouted down on this talk page, but I do feel it incumbent upon me at this juncture to at least grumble momentarily that it not only could be argued, but is blatantly obvious that the vast majority of Hilton's recognition stems from the sex tape, and that this preponderance of its share of public notice should be reflected in the article. Having gotten that off my chest, I eagerly await the next venemously monosyllabic rebuttal from the Hilton fan club. :P -Kasreyn 10:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I have no objection to the first instance of the sex tape's mention "Hilton shot to prominence when a sex video of her with then-boyfriend Rick Salomon was leaked onto the Internet shortly after The Simple Life debuted, causing a sensation." That's all fine, that is mostly how she's known. What I think is misleading is the later sentence about having gained recognition in recent years for movies, commercials and sex tapes. Because it suggests that after sex tape one there were further deliberate pornographic ventures which AFAIK there have not been. I wouldn't call myself a Paris Hilton fan at all. I am aware of her 'work' but mostly because it's car crash television, bizarrely fascinating.--Rhi 17:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. You're right that we shouldn't make insinuations that Paris has deliberately made pornography unless we have proof. I wasn't aware the article said "sex tapes". -Kasreyn 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made that change now.--Rhi 11:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

is she also a good for nothing? shouldnt we add "loser" to the title?

She may be, but that doesn't make it fit to be in the article. Эйрон Кинни 18:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of racial slurs

I submit that it *is* worth reporting if it turns out to be true that Hilton has made racial slurs. Those who defend her in this article seem to be convinced she's wholesome, wonderful, and a good role model. Therefore it's highly suspect when they remove an allegation that she may have done something that leaves a rather different impression. It's in the nature of celebrities for some people to see them as role models, and for there to be a public debate over their personal character. The allegations of Ms. Hilton using racial slurs speak directly to that public debate.

Of course, I don't know anything about the veracity or reliability of the "New York Daily News" or "Drunk Report", so I still have my doubts about the allegations. If someone can show that those publications are not reliable sources, I'll be the first to remove the allegations against Ms. Hilton, but they will not be removed because "anyone could have said that". Paris Hilton is not just anyone, she is a celebrity. Therefore a higher standard of scrutiny is proper. If she were "anyone", she would not have her very own article on Wikipedia. :P -Kasreyn 13:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the links be simply numbered rather than named, to fit in with the rest of the page style? --Rhi 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, as long as they're all there. The order in which they're listed really is a non-issue in my eyes. -Kasreyn 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the tape? She TOTALLY said it, it's quite clear when she says "stupid n*****s," so I don't know how people are still arguing that she didn't say it. That's probably the real reason she and Nicole Richie aren't friends anymore.

What tape? There is no tape. We're also neglecting to mention that Paris has since been seen spending a holiday with Brandon Davis, and on several outings with him in L.A, so he can't have ended the friendship for too long. 203.49.212.13 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not reporting on the tape. We are reporting on what Carol Aye Maung said, and what Davis said. AFAIK none of us editing this article has viewed the tape. That's immaterial, however. -Kasreyn 17:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted revisions

I made a set of revisions to this article which have now been reverted (by Pazuzu567) to an earlier version by Kasreyn. I think my changes were substantive and contributed to the sense of the article. They included the following changes: deleted the separate "1 night in Paris section" which was a duplicate of the first instance of this being mentioned, combined all the separate controversies into a sub-headed controversies section, deleted separate engagements and religion sections and moved the text into background, reordered material within sections to appear chronologically. Pazuzu567 didn't explain why he/she reverted me. Can you let me know why here please, otherwise, I'll revert back to my last version.--Rhi 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity about the reversions, but I don't consider it my problem. For example, someone (IP 203.etc.etc.etc, check history) blanked the section on the allegations of racism. Then several users worked on the article, mostly having a revert war over cat: porn star. I have just now reverted all these edits to my last one to restore the allegations of racism. If you have a problem with the allegations of racism, take it to the talk page - I created a section just for that reason.

If it upsets any of those editors that I reverted them, they should be aware that if they had reverted the blanking of the racism allegations themselves, I would not have had to be involved. Let's all do our jobs here. -Kasreyn 05:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess if there's a war going on with this article it's everyone's problem. I was simply trying to make contact with whoever is working on this. Someone has commented in the history 203.49.212.87 (RV! RhiannonLassiter and others, please stop vandalising.) and I have a suspicion that I'm being reverted on principle because someone here has incorrectly identified me as a vandal - perhaps confusing me with some Paris Hilton fans who've been here vandalising recently. I just want to reassure other users I'm not stripping anything except duplicate content. I have no interest in censoring the wiki.

On the pornstar issue, I really liked the unwitting porn star wording. --Rhi 11:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Pazuzu567 isn't actually looking at my changes at all now. Despite my creation of this section and creating a talk page for their username to try to discuss the issue, he/she reverted me again with the edit summary (Rv to my last version, to remove RhiannonLassiter's vandalism once again!). Can anyone help me convince this person that my edits are in good faith and useful to the article? I have combined the various separate business ventures such as fragrances into the 'model, actress, entrepeneur' section. I have moved all the different 'controversies' into a controversies section with separate heading levels. I have expanded the racism controversy to add details from the two sources cited. I have deleted the 1 night in Paris section because it is a duplicate of content that appears earlier on the page. I have moved the paragraphs on engagements to the general background section. I have added to the section on the Simple Life These are all good faith edits. Pazuzu doesn't own this article, and the version he/she is trying to reinstate is obsolete, people other than me have made changes to the version I have been reverting.--Rhi 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the way the page was put together to begin with, and you basically just came on one day, and changed it from top to bottom. This is why I was reverting it. In case you didn't notice, others besides me did too. Don't make me out to be the lone "villain" in this situation. As far as you believing the way the page is now is correct, suit yourself. Others besides myself are likely to disagree too, but I will leave the page be. I won't appologize, because I don't think I was particularly in the wrong here, but I suppose you aren't either Rhiannon, so I will let you be. Have fun with this page. Most of us are fans and we all just want the best for this page, that much is for sure. Pazuzu567 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to talk about it. Yes, I did just come along one day and reorder the article. That is quite true. But it's not fair to say there was nothing wrong with it. What about the duplicate text, for a start? I'm sure it's come a long way from its beginnings but sometimes a fresh eye can spot errors when regular editors don't.

Although I glanced through the talk page I didn't notice there was current tension here or I wouldn't have made such substantial changes without mentioning them. However, I don't think I need a proven track record of working with this article to contribute to it. Kasreyn who says above that his reverts were to prevent the categorisation of 'porn star' being removed. (Something that itself was not vandalism but an innocent mistake by Dominus.) I understand it must be frustrating to have to fight off vandalism here. But please don't be so quick to assume it. Wikipedia advises that changes are bold. Does anyone here think my edits failed to improve the article? I'm willing to go with consensus. --Rhi 09:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true - I happened to undo the porn star cat war because someone blanked the racist slur allegation and I was reverting that vandalism. The porn star category is of less interest to me than actual concrete facts regarding Hilton. As for me, I think both Rhiannon and Pazuzu have edited in good faith. -Kasreyn 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Porn star category

This goes along with the above sections. At various points, Paris Hilton is either listed as being part of the American Porn Stars category or not listed in that category. Here's why I think she should be listed. She was in a released porn video. She starred in that porn video. She agreed to allow the commercial release of that porn movie. I think this clearly makes her a porn star and she is, undoubtedly, American. Obviously, not everyone agrees with this so I'd like to hear your counterarguments before I go about reverting the removal of the category. --Yamla 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral on this issue, although I'm anxiou to make common ground with other editors of this article (please see my point on reversions above). The porn stars category doesn't have any description of what that category entails. There's no indication that it distinguishes between full-time 'professional' erotic actresses and 'amateur' or 'accidental' erotic performers. I would argue for keeping the category in but I wonder if we should have a discussion about intent? Paris Hilton did not deliberately intend to make a porn movie (as far as I'm aware), however she does now endorse the tape (in the sense of receiving profits from it). --Rhi 18:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was stumbling into an edit war, or that there was any dispute about the category, so I apologize for repeatedly making the change. I thought it was only being wiped out as a side-effect of reversions that were intended to remove other changes. I am sorry for any confusion or annoyance I caused anyone.

I don't much care whether it is there or not, and I am not going to tinker with it again; I will leave it up to you folks. But at the time I removed it, I did so because I thought it was so obviously incorrect that it must have been put there as vandalism. My understanding of the term "porn star" is that it is an occupational designation: that is, it designates a person whose primary occupation is performing in pornographic entertainments or who is primarily known for such performances. If this definition is correct, it seems to me that Paris Hilton clearly doesn't qualify. (Similarly, Malcolm McDowell is not a porn star, despite his appearance in Caligula.) The argument the other way does seem to me to have some merit, but not as much.

Ultimately, I think the answer should appeal to questions of usefulness and practicality. Would someone scanning the list of "American porn stars" expect to find Paris Hilton? Would they be confused or misled by her appearance there? Would someone looking for such a list be well-served by the inclusion of Paris Hilton? I think probably not, but of course that is just a speculation. I think including her in a category for persons who have appeared in illicitly released pornographic videos", along with Pamela Anderson, would be more informative and more apt.

That's my piece, and I hope you find it helpful and can agree on a solution that satisfies everyone. -- Dominus 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say a porn star is anyone who's been in at least one porn film. I'd call someone in the profession of it a "porn actress". But that's just me. As for Malcolm McDowell, I wouldn't mind the category "porn star" being added to his article (though I'm sure that might spark yet another war); to me, though, the great bulk of his filmography outweighs his limited porn filmography. Paris Hilton, on the other hand, owes her explosion in popularity to her pornographic experience. -Kasreyn 06:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's to be a vote, I certainly vote for the inclusion of the category. For "1 Night in Paris" to be anything other than porn, it would have to have (how did the Supreme Court put it?) some sort of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Frankly, I've seen the tape and I didn't spot those values. The tape is porn. As has been pointed out, she eventually agreed to its release and profited from it. As for "unwitting", I only proposed it as a joke. After all, if we created the "unwitting porn stars" category, I think only Pam Anderson, Paris Hilton, and R. Kelly would occupy it...  ;) -Kasreyn 06:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Colin Farrell. That Slovenian singer (or was it Slovakian?). That Taiwanese government lady. Some would say Linda Lovelace. Hell, it might be a useful cat. :P --Golbez 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was serious when I suggested it. -- Dominus 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have reached a consensus that we should add the category back in; Paris Hilton seems to fit, though we would perhaps prefer a category such as "unwitting porn stars". It is not my intention to claim consensus here if there's still debate so please speak up if you think I am putting words in your mouth. Otherwise, I'll add the category back in later today or tomorrow. --Yamla 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of view that she is a porn star has consensus, but POVs shouldn't be used for cats, especially ones that are derogatory. At a bare minimum, a *much* more neutral category name is needed. --Rob 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it a point of view. Unless, of course, you can show that "1 Night in Paris" wasn't porn. -Kasreyn 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You've said this several times, but I really think you're missing the point of the objection. Nobody is claiming that "1 Night in Paris" is not porn. The claim is that appearing in one porn movie does not make one a "porn star". Similarly, not every poerson who has ever appeared in a movie is a "movie star", and not every person who has appeared on television is a "television star".

I also dispute the contention that Pariis Hilton is primarily noted for her appearance in the porn movie. I wasn't aware of it before this discussion. I was familiar with her because of her appearance in "The Simple Life" and many television talk shows. I think you may be mistaking your own experience for the common experience. -- Dominus 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I concede the point. Go ahead and remove the "porn star" cat if you want. You won't hear any more objections from me - unless Paris signs a contract with Vivid Video or something.  ;) -Kasreyn 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. She was pretty well known before that incident. By the time I created this article in December 2003, I remember finding it surprising she didn't already have one. I'm not at all interested in gossipy stuff, nor attempt to keep up with it, so she really was pretty well-known by that time. The video didn't come out until a half-year later. I also vehemently reject this category, because it was just a private sex tape that was published, against her efforts. I would probably define a porn star as someone who professionally seeks out work in the porn industry, rather than someone whose short-term partner decided to sell your activities as a video after the fact. Sarge Baldy 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While I think the tape did vastly increase her prominence in the tabloid media, on further reflection I don't think that including her in the porn stars category is an accurate categorisation. If the category were 'actresses who have made porn' or the 'unintentional appearance in porn' cat suggested both lightheartedly and seriously above I'd say yes. But since porn star is not her primary occupation, nor (AFAIK) a career she intends to pursue in the future, I don't think the tape is enough reason for the categorisation. Thus I'm changing my position from neutral to no. --Rhi 11:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, you kind folks have convinced me that she doesn't fit that category as currently described. She's starred in a porn movie but is not a porn star. --Yamla 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's all a matter of scale. The star of Manos: The Hands of Fate, had MST3K not found it, would have been the star of a movie, but not a movie star. 1 Night in Paris is roughly equal. :P --Golbez 15:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is one which has not been taken into consideration; she may be famous for her "other" exploits in the West, however, her porn flick catapulted her into fame over here in India. That is how most of us have come to know about her. Like it or not, she is famous (in other parts of the world) for her "unwitting" role in that porn movie. :D --59.93.242.66 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not every person who makes a porno movie is a porn star. HOWEVER, she is famous for making a porn movie and being in a porn movie, so she is definitely a porn star.

Time to archive the talk page?

With the current disputes seeming to have been resolved or at least moving that way, should we move on to archiving the earlier talk page discussions? It's at 68 kilobytes now which is twice the recommended size. I could just do it, but I don't want to appear to be trying to take over here. Does anyone else want to? --Rhi 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving sounds ok to me. --Rob 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping the discussion sections on racism allegations and porn star category, though. Those are still being vandalized and/or reverted on a regular basis, which to me indicates they're not resolved yet. Cheers, Kasreyn 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've archived it to /Archive 1. Jude(talk,contribs) 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Danger

The whole section on racism is way over the top. It quotes various articles from gossip magizines and English newspapers that are regularly on the receiving end of lawsuits. Wikipedia is sailing very close to the wind, if it likes to follow this sort of example. It is one thing for a gossip sheet to print something that is forgotten in a week. It is another for readers of Wikipedia, who may view this article in the year 2315, and treat it very seriously. Wallie 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You honestly think the world is going to remember who Paris Hilton was three hundred years from now? Assuming there's still a human race by then, I doubt they'll even be able to name any 21st century American Presidents. Tawdry would-be glamor models are the last thing history wastes time on. -Kasreyn 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course Paris Hilton will be well known in 300 years time, and unfortunately what is written now in this article will become known as the truth then. Others who were vilified, but not as badly as Paris Hilton, in their day, are still written about. The list includes Cleopatra, Clara Schumann, Sarah Bernhardt, Anna Pavlova, and Helen of Troy. All of these women have been the subject of many films, novels, research, etc. Beauty is timeless. Wallie 08:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, history generally only remembers one to three people in a given field in a given century. So how do you think Paris stacks up against Marilyn Monroe, Greta Garbo, Lauren Bacall, Rita Hayworth, Audrey Hepburn, Cindy Crawford, and Angelina Jolie? I can't even begin to decide between those ladies, but surely only two or three of them will be remembered. Paris Hilton? I really, really doubt it. In any case, we've already gone way off topic here, so I suppose I should quit growing this thread. -Kasreyn 13:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the list of ladies that I mentioned certainly do match up, and will probably be more famous than your list in the future, say in 300 years time. The list that you mention are different in that the media and Wikipedia in their time spoke positively about them, with the exception of Audrey Hepburn, who was also vilified by the media in her time. Wallie 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Have you seen the tape? It is QUITE clear that she says "stupid n*****s"

Have you seen the tape? No. Why? Because there is no tape, and the whole alligation, if not for Brandon Davis, would have been dismissed as tabloid bullcrap long ago.

• • So what? Does that make her a racist? Have you ever said this word? Be honest now. If you have, does that make you a racist? Are people accusing her of being racist, racists themselves against white people? The word itself is not important, to my mind, it is what is in the person's mind that is. Wallie 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why the section is called "allegations of racism", not "proof of". One statement does not constitute proof, merely a clue. And yes, I've used the word before, when I brought it home from school at age six. My dad gave me a spanking and told me never to use that word in his home again. I never have used it since. The difference is, Paris Hilton is not six, she is an adult. Furthermore, she is a celebrity and therefore, deservedly or not, a role model for young girls. So she is held to a higher standard of behavior than other adults, because she is in the public eye and her actions can affect the behavior of young girls.

Your statement about "racism against whites" is the silliest thing I've heard come out of your mouth yet. Did you forget to turn your brain on before you opened your mouth? Racism against white people would be if a black person was calling white people names. We are talking about a white person calling black people names. Get it straight.

In general, I feel I should point out that you seem awfully concerned over Hilton's reputation, and not very concerned over whether she might start a trend of making racism "cool" to young girls. That makes me wonder about you, Wallie. -Kasreyn 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No. You have me all wrong. I am very concerned when anyone is singled out for unjustified treatment. In my day, it was called bullying. There are plenty of people out there who are really racist, and these people are left alone. As for racism against white people, there is plenty of that too. It is just not fashionable to mention this at the moment in the United States. However, it is unlikely Paris Hilton would be subjected to this sort of attack, were she non-white. She may have been in the 1950s. As for being a role model for young girls, they are probably influenced more by their family and friends. It is a pity your dad gave you a spanking. I would not lay a finger on my daughter, and never have. Wallie 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I mention it only to illustrate a difference in our viewpoints, Wallie: where I come from, there is no such thing as an acceptable racist statement, or a racist statement that you can "let slide", especially if it's coming from a person who's in the public eye as Paris is. I do not deny that there are people who are racist against whites. That does not give white people some sort of excuse to be racist, though. -Kasreyn 11:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever said this word? Be honest now

No, Wallie, I never have, and that's the honest truth. To do so is a mark of stupidity, ignorance and naïvety. --^pirate 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. You must be a saint. Wallie 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Yamla.

I'd give you a barnstar, but I don't know how.  :) -Kasreyn 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:Barnstar--hottie 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) -Kasreyn 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If I say something nasty about Paris, will you give me a barnstar too? Well, I won't as I do have some principles. Wallie 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a fool. I gave Yamla a barnstar for his diligent work reverting vandalism. I noticed it from this page, but then checked his contribs and saw that he spends even more time than me reverting vandals, which deserves merit. You, on the other hand, seem to focus narrowly on defending your Hilton goddess; that, and leaping to incorrect conclusions. In short, you'd be best advised to engage your brain before your mouth the next time you think it's time to judge someone. -Kasreyn 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I may be a fool. But at least I am not a nasty person, so probably won't get your barnstar (sob sob). Anyhow, this should be a discussion about Paris Hilton, and not about vanadalism and barnstars. I would say that you could follow your own advice. That would be nice. Wallie 07:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because if I remember correctly, from about three paragraphs above, you were the one who started shit. I was just making a very short comment to Yamla, and receiving a very short and helpful answer from hotwiki, who unlike you can be civil to people he disagrees with. -Kasreyn 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. Swearing too. Perhaps you need to attend a good anger management course. I could recommend one if you like. The expert may advise you to direct your energies away from Paris and me to a more beneficial cause. Wallie 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A real pity

This article is becoming vengeful and hateful. To my mind, it has no place the way it is in Wikipedia. The thing that really worries me is that so many admins (ie, the Senior Management of Wikipedia) are contributing to/condoning this.Wallie 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mind explaining what you're talking about? --Golbez 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The article is unprofessional and I think you know it too. You also know what I am talking about too. Admins, including yourself have repeatedly reversed any text which attempts to redress the obvious bias of this article. I honestly believe that you and others are trying to take positions and win arguments, by any means, rather than actually trying to improve Wikipedia. Quite frankly I am rather annoyed about this. Wallie 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits tend to replace one bias with another. Show me an example of an edit made to shift it to a neutral POV that someone reverted, please. --Golbez 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have attempted to put some other points in the section "Controversies". These are not "controversies" but an out and out character assasinations. It is horrible. As I mentioned to you earlier, I would not like this said about my daughter, who similar in age to Paris. You replied by calling my daughter "vaucous slut", I seem to remember. I was surprised at this comment, given your very senior position in Wikipedia. I remember that this section once said that Paris had racist attitudes towards Nicole Richie. And yet hidden away in this article somewhere, Nicole is now defending her, saying that she is not! Again, I don't think that you want to improve things. I believe that you just want to cause trouble. Wallie 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You deliberately took my comment the wrong way. As for the controversies, I'm removing the racial slur one - it's such a minor incident, it doesn't bear mentioning here. The other ones are backed up either by a lawsuit/restraining order, or considerable press. This got almost no press at all. --Golbez 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well. Good luck. I think you will be reverted too, if you try to remove the racial slur. As for the considerable press, this is mostly from gossip columnists and disruptable tabloid newspaper employees. Can you really imagine that these "stories" would appear in Encyclopedia Brittanica? I think you the wrong idea about me too. I just hate character assassinations, especially accusing people of racism. Usually in my experience, people who call others racist are the real racists themselves. Wallie 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How is someone going to be a racist in this situation? It was a controversy, and you have been informed not to remove large portions of the article anymore. Stop making legal threats against me, because it's not going to work, and you can't sue someone my age. Эйрон Кинни (t) 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism section

"doesn't matter how much coverage it got, it is notable and both Hilton and Richie made responses to it and her friend made allegations as well."

Explain how it is notable, please. --Golbez 02:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Эйрон Кинни (t) 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting an earlier edit summary. I'd like the inclusion of this section to be justified. --Golbez 19:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the racist section? Эйрон Кинни (t) 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes... --Golbez 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of this. I'm reinserting the section because "Paris Hilton, racism" gets 420,000 Google hits. This is also on IMDb, "Hotel heiress Paris Hilton is fighting off accusations she made racist comments at a New York party. Last week, American newspaper New Pork Post reported that in a recently surfaced 12-hour videotape, Hilton is shown speaking with two African-American men, who ask her if she would model their fashion line. The publication reported that Hilton, standing with pal Brandon Davis, was polite to the men, but called them "dumb n*****s" after they left, according to British reporter Carole Aye Maung, who reviewing the alleged tape." If it's on IMDb, it should be on here, that proves it's notable and it happened. Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're sick of having to prove it belongs? How sad. As for "if it's on IMDb, it should be on here," there is so much worthless news on the IMDb. Should we have the rumor that Tom Cruise bought an adult pacifier for Katie Holmes on here? (god help wiki if it is) So she called them dumb niggers. Tell me how this is notable? Being reported in tabloids does not necessarily make something notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please, tell me how this is a notable incident. No charges were brought, no press apart from tabloids cared, and it really does seem like an attempt to pile on Paris more, and believe me, I'm not a Paris defender, just look at my previous arguments with Willie. I just want to have this section justified. --Golbez 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a controversy, and there is a controversy section. I think if she responded to the tabloids that makes it notable enough. But I'm not the one who originally inserted it, either. Several other admins passed over it while reverting countless vandalism incidents, and they didn't see fit to remove it. Why should you, or me, or anyone else for that matter? Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Bigotry and eroticism are two different things, one is highly frowned upon in today's society (referring to the Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes thing). Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Katie Holmes thing was not about eroticism at all. You don't know about the story, yet you're commenting on it. --Golbez 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I try to stay away from those stories, so yea, I don't know about the story. Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins are not content masters. Look at me as an editor, not an admin. I would say it's notable only because she's an easy target, the incident itself does not seem notable. I feel that were this about almost any other non-politician, it wouldn't register at all. I will not continue to remove it; discussion was spurred. However, I really would like the notability indicated. Last I checked, in America, calling someone a dumb nigger is not illegal. --Golbez 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to indicate its notability. But it had several websites referenced in that section, so it's notability shouldn't be disputed. I never inserted that section into the article, I am just reinserting it and defending the actions of all previous editors who let it remain there. Using the term "nigger" is an indication of racism (for many) in the United States, at least, for those who aren't African Americans. Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am only engaging in this discussion, as I feel that Miss Hilton is being treated unfairly. You would be best advised to concentrate your efforts on real racists and other evil persons, and not just some poor girl who has got off side with some disreputable media and other shady characters. Wallie 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not about whether she is a poor girl or not. I couldn't care less about that. This is a question about whether your edits were legitimate, or were they vandalism; this is a question of whether this story is notable. Now if you want to reach consensus, do it, but please don't vandalize the article because you feel she's being "treated unfairly." Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is at the heart of the problem. You do not care about the article, or its fairness. All you are interested about is scoring points over me. Wallie 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep sidestepping the issue? Stop accusing me of racism, bringing suit threats against me, and discuss the section's validity...please. Fairness is not what this article is concerned with, it's concerned with facts and an NPOV stance. Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Again. You do not care about the article, or its fairness. All you are interested about is scoring points over me. Wallie 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to discuss this with any avail. Therefore I am going to have to stop participating in this discussion for fear of being accused of other absurdities. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Willie, this was going better before you got involved. Your blind praising of Paris and ignorance of everything bad about her is not helping create a neutral article, nor are accusing people of "scoring points". News flash: No one here gives a lick about you, therefore we cannot care about scoring points over you. The point of a wikipedia article is not fairness; if you want that, please go to Wikinfo. The point of a wikipedia article is a neutral point of view of notable people, things, and incidents, and in my opinion, the racism section did not fit this. I do NOT want the racism section removed because of fairness or points. Kinneyboy, please don't withdraw just yet, just ignore Willie. --Golbez 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have other things to deal with in a similar situation to this at the Smith Wigglesworth article. It's stressful to me and I can't continue this with both topics. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Golbez. I did appreciate your getting involved with the discussion. I do not want just "blind praising" of Paris either. I just wanted to say that we should discuss the article, rather than getting involved with personal discussions. However, if anyone gets personal with me, you can definitely expect a response from me. Sometimes, the other person wants to then walk away. (They can dish it out, but cannot take it.) It may be my POV, but I HATE public personal attacks on anyone. I realise that neutrality and not fairness is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. I sometime have difficultly with this one as it goes against my nature. You see, I am not Swiss.

Dear Kinneyboy. I am certainly not singling you out either. Others have also been on my case, as most others would agree with you regarding Paris. My advice to you is not to get stressed out about anything. Keep cool at all times. By the way, you argue well for one so young. Also, I did see your comment on my user page. I also have a sense of humour. (is humor the correct spelling for Wikipedia?). Wallie

Regarding spelling, Wikipedia accepts both British (humour) and American (humor) spelling. The rule of thumb is, an article about something British (like, say, Tony Blair) gets British spelling, an article about something American (like, say, New York City) gets American spelling, and editor consensus is used otherwise. Typically, it's considered best to go with whatever is already being used in the article, rather than to start spelling wars. Hope this helped. -Kasreyn 02:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple, Golbez. There is very little about Paris Hilton that is notable in the first place, which lowers the bar on details. She is a celebrity, much as it puzzles me how that happened. Being a celebrity, she is considered in the society to which she belongs to be a role model. Being a role model, her behavior and attitudes are considered notable for their possible impact on the young. If Paris Hilton says something racist, it is far more notable than if I did; she is a role model, and I am not. There is your reason for its notability. Please restore the allegations of racism section, unless you can cogently refute the truth of its contents. -Kasreyn 02:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

my two cents - i think it's pretty obvious that the allegations about racism are notable. they may be unfounded/fabricated/whatever, but it is undeniable that those allegations have been pretty prevalent in the media and what not. why not include a line or two in the section talking about how the allegations are potentially just efforts to bash paris hilton's reputation? Theconroy 05:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

Tere is a broken-link reference to a document that is not on the ESPN site anymore.

↑ Gary, Crary Activists campaign against seal hunt February 2, 2004 ESPN. --200.126.147.39 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please restore section: allegations of racism

Golbez, I fail to see how a discussion between you and Wallie counts as consensus. I've been absent for a few days and I find that he has blanked a section and the article is protected. So I'm asking you to restore the section. You never replied to my comments above on why Paris Hilton's behavior is notable (her status as a role model); can I take that to mean that you agree? If so, surely you will agree that such allegations about a role model are notable. I'm not asking for the protection to be removed, mind you; I know how bad the vandals have been recently. But the section should be restored. -Kasreyn 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet been convinced that just because she's notable that this, charged by a tabloid reporter and backed up, so far as I can tell, by no other reputable news source, is worth a mention in the great Wikipedia. Can you find corroboration that doesn't cite this reporter? However, as I said above, "I will not continue to remove it; discussion was spurred." That doesn't mean I'll add it, either. I've withdrawn from the argument. Also, read the protection message more carefully - it only prevents anonymous IPs from editing. You can edit to your heart's content. And no, I don't agree that she's a role model, except for, well, vacuous sluts. :) --Golbez 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i don't think it matters so much that she's been charged by an unreliable source, i think what matters is that the allegations brought by the unreliable source has had noticeable effect on society, since a lot of people know about the controversy. Theconroy 05:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Even as a Paris fan, I think the racism section should be restored.

The reason for that being, if the racism controvery has to be removed, the whole controvery section should be too.

The Allegations of Racism section was not biased in anyway. It presented the allegations, it had Brandon Davis backing up the allegations. It had Paris denying them, and Nicole Richie backing her up. It stood out as information points that people may want to know about.

Like I said, I'm a Paris fan. I don't think she was racist myself. That article was simply allegations, and presented both sides neautrally. If we're going to bother having a section for controversies, why pick and choose? Have them there; but keep it neautral and real.

No need to totally remove the article, because as long as we're talking controversies it is a point of interest for some, so I don't see why we should go without. If we can justify removing the racist controversy, why not just remove them all? Pazuzu567 14:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see these "controversies" removed too. These are not controversies, but accusations. For a controversy, there has to be a discussion. The central theme of this section is simply to report what some gossip/sex columnist has stated as "fact", followed up by "this is not true" type comments by the recipient of the attacks and/or friends. I don't particularly like the whole article, but it is a big improvement without the most offensive bit, the so called "racist" section. I would be also quite happy to see the article locked for perpetuity, as the article will probably get worse and worse, like "The Picture of Dorian Gray". Wallie 13:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, so no point in bringing it up. --Golbez 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No. When you unlock the article, I guess things will then again degrade quite quickly. I am a realist. Wallie 20:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not locked. It's protected from anonymous IPs. Permanent semi-protection is possible; what you seemed to be suggesting is permanent protection. --Golbez 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Restraining order

Nothing in this article is actually cited. Does it have the right to even be there without citation? Pazuzu567 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. Note that any citiation should also be from a reliable source, not "Dish It Up", "Latest Scandals", Joe Bloggs, etc. Nearly every source quoted in this article is stupid. Wallie 13:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick word of advice: Don't hold your breath for CNN or the New York Times to report on Paris Hilton. I wouldn't want you to suffocate.

My point? Hmm, how to say this politely... Let's just say that only unreliable sources have so little worth reporting on that they have time to report on Paris Hilton.

The solution? A much smaller article on Paris Hilton, as per the notability policy. Or perhaps none at all. -Kasreyn 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you have just increased the size of the article by reinstating the offensive article on racism. We have had our disagreements, but at least I am consistent (ie honest). You say one thing and act in another way. Wallie 06:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone adds citations, I'm going to remove it. Pazuzu567 09:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed the Restraining Order article, due to lack of citation. Do not bother re-adding it unless you can cite sources. Pazuzu567 14:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please restore section: Trivia

I feel that it was unjust to delete the trivia page of this article as Paris Hilton WAS recently voted most pointless celebrity, and was not a way for me it to get my fellings across about Paris Hilton's celebrity status.--Dobby 20:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I've added tags for cleanup and neutrality. I've also pointed out the citations needed for a certain article. This page is looking quite a mess lately, as Wallie and others have pointed out. Let's fix it up. Pazuzu567 07:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ISSUE 1 - PROBABLE FALSE ALLEGATION: RACISM - KASREYN'S SECTION

RE: "It's a pity about the reversions, but I don't consider it my problem. For example, someone (IP 203.etc.etc.etc, check history) blanked the section on the allegations of racism. Then several users worked on the article, mostly having a revert war over cat: porn star. I have just now reverted all these edits to my last one to restore the allegations of racism. If you have a problem with the allegations of racism, take it to the talk page - I created a section just for that reason.

If it upsets any of those editors that I reverted them, they should be aware that if they had reverted the blanking of the racism allegations themselves, I would not have had to be involved. Let's all do our jobs here. -Kasreyn 05:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)"

I do have a problem with the section "Allegations of racism" and have stated this on many occasions. However, the article keeps on re-appearing mainly as you, Kasreyn, like to keep it there, as it is your work (refer above), even though it offends any decent minded person. This "allegation" has been made by Carole Aye Maung, and is most probably a complete lie. Carole Aye Maung has made nasty and false allegations about innocent people in the past. I refered to this, with citiations, in the main article, and this text was, as usual, promptly removed by supporters of the anti-Paris faction. Wallie 14:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire point of this is that Wikipedia cannot make a priori judgements about which allegations are "probably" false. I'm not going to be drawn into a substantive debate here, because it's just a smokescreen as far as I'm concerned. As far as I know you (and possibly hotwiki) are the only one/s who desire to remove the allegations of racism section. I am interested in the section staying, Golbez has indicated that he either wishes it to stay or doesn't care, and most others have passively allowed the section to remain. I'd hate for this to come down to a straw poll; does anyone have a better solution than that?

My point about editors upset over my reverts is this: when a section is blanked without previous discussion on the talk page, that is vandalism in my mind. No ifs ands or buts. Even if the section is later universally agreed by the editors to have been bad, blanking it without discussion is vandalism. I revert all vandalism I see on Wikipedia, even when it's making a "point" I agree with, or even in some cases if it's encyclopedic and informative but was simply inappropriate for the place it was inserted.

The section was removed by you, Wallie, with an edit comment as follows:

"fine, Golbez. I will delete the whole section, in agreement with you."

I have searched this talk page and I cannot find anywhere where Golbez came to an agreement with you to delete the section. If you can point this out to me, please do. My guess is that you deliberately misinterpreted Golbez's indifference. Indifference is not the same thing as agreement. To wit, I don't feel Wallie had any sort of informed consensus in hand before he blanked the section, so after discussing it with Golbez (if I remember correctly), I restored it.

Summation: The section is not "Kasreyn's section". When I said "I created a section", I was referring to a section on the talk page for discussing the racism allegations section. I only care about it because I feel that if it has problems, blanking them as Wallie proposes is not the best way to fix them. Wikipedia cannot make assertions a priori as to which claims and allegations are "probably false", as Wallie suggests. To do so would violate NPOV. Wallie also continues to lay claim to being the spokesperson for an invisible majority of people who would be offended by allegations against Paris Hilton. Until this heretofore invisible majority steps forward and verifies that Wallie is their spokesperson, I will have to continue to assume that he's just trying to push his point of view on this article.

Respectfully to all editors (even you, Wallie :) -Kasreyn 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Golbez did delete the entire "racism" section in the first place, with an explanation. It was reinstated by someone else. I then attempted to explain with references that implying that Maung, the initiator of these, in my belief, total false and displicable allegations, is not a person to be trusted. Golbez then tactically switched sides and removed this proof. As far as representing a majority is concerned, I have never even hinted at that. I only refered to decent minded people. In fact, I am actually in a minority in this. Doesn't mean to say the minority or I are wrong, though. I also said the allegations are probably false, as this is a discussion page, and not in the main article. I was basing this on Maung's past history of allegations against Michael Jackson, Olivia Newton John, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears and others. I personally think the British reporter Maung, as she refers to herself, should not be given credibilty on Wikipedia. It all comes down to whether you trust Maung or Hilton. Wallie 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about switching sides, this was solely about removing unsubstantiated links of Maung being a disreputable reporter. Making allegations doesn't mater - you have to find someone else (not you) who says that the allegations SHE made specifically are false. --Golbez 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is an issue for consulting WP:RS. What IS the Wikipedia policy when the reliability of a source is contested and there's no "common sense" answer? (ie., it's common sense not to cite the Washington Times, or the Voz de Aztlan, or other extreme POV papers) If there's no publically-accepted reality of Maung's reliability, one way or the other, then what is the process we are supposed to use to determine her reliability? For instance, what are Wallie's options? Does he need to provide some set number of verifiable (as in sourced) examples of her unreliability? Is reliability something that is declared by administrative fiat? I'm honestly very curious. I'd never heard of Maung before this argument arose, and so I know nothing about her except what she has said about Ms. Hilton, and what Wallie has accused her of. How am I, an editor, supposed to make a decision on her reliability/unreliability? -Kasreyn 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to find criticism of one journalist by another. And it is these people that we are quoting, are we not? I would have thought that the sort of article and employer that Maung is associated with speaks for itself. The articles are usually full of smutty sensationalism and/or stuff with strong right bias, typical of the "stories" in News of the World. The problem is that she is quoted as being a British reporter, and the word British still seems to make some in the US bow and scrape, or be somehow impressed. Folks in other countries are not so easily overcome. In addition to that her Chinese name probably adds even more credibility for some. But look at what she writes, and judge from that. I did provide plenty of examples, to indicate where she is coming from, but they failed the Golbez test. O well... Wallie 19:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? You've completely lost me, Wallie. How is Brandon Davis's ethnicity even remotely noteworthy in that section? He's not the one being accused of being racist. Kasreyn 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You can't have it both ways. Ethnicity is important in this case. If you "racially profile" some people, better do it to everyone... Lets lay all the cards on the table. Otherwise, get rid of the "African-American" put-down. Wallie 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Davis is not being accused of racism. He's essentially nothing but a potential witness to the event. If he had not been present, and Hilton had just muttered "dumb niggers" under her breath and was caught on tape with no one else there, the allegations would still be the same. We don't actually need, as far as I can tell, to actually make much mention of Davis in the article. We do so only for completeness purposes (so readers won't be confused as to who she said it to). It could have been Bozo the Clown with her at the party for all it matters. So, let's try this again: explain why Davis's ethnicity is notable in this context, since he's neither the offender nor the victim in the alleged offense? P.S. Look up racial profiling, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. -Kasreyn 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lazy Eye

this fact should be included, and why the hell is this page still locked??? SOMEone is watching...

What fact? She has a lazy eye? How on earth is that remotely notable? And it's only locked to new and anonymous users. --Golbez 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Two removals

I've removed a line asserting that Paris was a waitress "before finding fame". I assume it was added as vandalism (or foolishness), but if not, it was certainly unsourced. I have a hard time believing that an heir to the Hilton Hotel fortune would ever do any time as a common wage-slave. But, if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to reinsert it if there's proof.

I've also removed some original research about the reasons for Paris and Sydney's naming. We can't say why they were named unless we have a quote from their parents. Besides, both names were human names long, long before they were names of cities. (Both, of course, were and are men's names, though Sydney is a bit more androgynous.)

I'm also wondering exactly *why* we spend time on Sydney. How is she notable? Was her performance clearly and deliberately intended as a parody of Paris Hilton, or just in the opinion of whoever added her? Can we get a source? Kasreyn 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert, again

I see you have reverted me yet again (boring). You seem to think it is fair enough to refer to black people as "African-Americans" and not by their names. White people usually don't get referred to by some collective name. Therefore it is only correct to do the same for white people, and refer to them as "European-Americans", as they come from Europe. It is not "pedantry". It is called NPOV. I really get sick of this term "African-Americans", when they should be simply called "Americans" in most contexts. Wallie 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But it would not be news if she had called white folk 'niggers'. (Not saying that it is news that she called black folk, but you see my point) You could simply remove the friend's name, but it's pedantic to point out his race. --Golbez 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)