Talk:Paris Hilton

Paris' Raspberry Awards

I think Paris' Raspberry Awards should be highlighted as part of the Film section in her article. It's just been announced that she won Worst Actress for "The Hottie and the Nottie" and Worst Supporting Actress for "Repo! The Genetic Opera." Perhaps a criticism section could be started with these and other Raspberry Awards victories as highlights?75.44.221.4 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should be included. They are insulting. And if she did not accept these awards then I don't think they are relevant. Tarheelz123 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements

An endorsement is a business contract between someone and a business. The person isn't necessarily involved at all, except to lend their name. Which is exactly what the material said she was doing in at least one case. A Wikipedia article is not an open invitation for celebs' marketing departments to brag about the amount their business ventures earn, any more than it's appropriate to include that information for George W. Bush to advertise his, or for Coca-cola. Notice those articles have very little mention of sales. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is a page for information about Paris Hilton. Part of Hilton's career involves promoting products and services based on her fame. It's perfectly reasonably to give examples of this aspect of her career; it's no more illegitimate promotion than including the names of films she's been in is "spam" for those films, or including her album is "spam" for that album. VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In a film, she does work. In an endorsement, she may not do anything at all. You didn't answer my question why such information is not included in the article about Bush or Coca-cola. There's no reason why Hilton should be an exception to the rule. Bush will make millions with his investments. His article doesn't mention them. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

George Bush's article probably should mention his investments (though I'm not sure how much information about that is publically available); it certainly should mention how he makes his living now that he isn't president. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with the Coca-cola article; that article does include information about Coca-cola advertising and event sponsorship, which seem somewhat analogous to discussions of Hilton's endorsements. Note that lots of other pages on celebrities include discussions of endorsements alongside other business ventures (e.g. Michael Jordan, Beyonce Knowles, Britney Spears - who has a whole page just for Britney Spears products). More to the point, why not include discussion of this aspect of a person's career? If somebody makes significant amounts of money from the mere use of their name, perhaps with no other involvement, is that not a significant fact about that person? VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of answers to your question: Check celeb's featured articles. Of the ones I checked none, not one, had sections, none seemed to even mention endorsements and promotions: Metallica, Kate Bush, Michael Jackson, The Smashing Pumpkins, Alice in Chains, Sex Pistols, Angelina Jolie, Katie Holmes. The closest is Jenna Jameson, but that's a section about a business she started and runs, and is directly related to what makes her notable: pornography. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One of my examples, Michael Jordan, is a Featured Article, and the other two are Good Articles. Other Featured Articles that discuss endorsements include Katie Holmes, which discusses her commercial relationship with The Gap (and, when it became a featured article, had a section on endorsements), Mandy Moore, which mentions her role as a Neutragena spokesmodel and discusses her fashion line, Gwen Stefani, which has a section on "non-musical projects," half of which is taken up with a discussion of her fashion lines and perfumes, and Mariah Carey, which mentions endorsements and licensing deals. So I don't think there's any existing consensus that the sort of material we have in the "Products and endorsements" section of this article is inappropriate.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Paris Hilton is famous for being famous, otherwise known as a celebutante. She's not famous because she's a great actress or talented musician who has won numerous prestigious awards for her professional career. Because of this point, endorsements are a major part of Hilton's career description. This is why it is important for this article. As long as the sources are reliable, I don't see a problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning is backward on that bit, Viriditas. If someone is *only* known for being a salesperson, a spammer, or a real estate agent, and they have a Wikipedia article, that brings into question whether they are notable to Wikipedia at all — not that "given they have an article, what they do must be notable". Apart from their official business site, a real estate agent would not be allowed to publish pages of their property listings. Just because Hilton is a notable big name does not mean she has a right to do in Wikipedia what would be forbidden for most other people as WP:SPAM.

I repeat VoluntarySlave, that the vast majority of featured articles mention no endorsements or licensing deals at all. You picked a couple examples in featured articles, while I picked a random sample of many, and found none had endorsements, except a special case. The Katie Holmes article? I skimmed it for a minute -- found no endorsements -- had to use search to find the reference to "The Gap" -- and it turns out she acted in commercials for them. She an actress, she acted in an ad. She's not endorsing "The Gap" and "The Gap" wouldn't be allowed an external link to their Web site in that article. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, I don't understand your objection. Paris Hilton is unquestionably notable; given that, we should include all useful and verifiable information about her career; product endorsements are a part of that career. Referring to brands she has worked with simply is not spam; your basic premise is false (your mention of "an external link" to The Gap's website is a red herring - there are no external links to the products Hilton is involved with in this article). Now, some of her more fleeting relationships may be too trivial to be worth including (the RICH Prosecco endorsement may be an example of this; I don't see why we include this but not the Carl's Jr ad, which I think received significantly more press coverage); but that needs a specific case-by-case discussion, not a blanket rejection of discussing Hilton's commercial activities.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The basic issue is that Wikipedia is being manipulated for promotional purposes. Hilton *is* notable, but not everything in her life is encyclopedic. (Does an encyclopedia need to note, as the article does now, that her dog was missing for six days?) "The Gap" was not intended as a red herring, but a specific counter example: An actress, performing her primary job as an actress, creating a commercial for "The Gap" is to the point. Contrarily, "Products and endorsements" noting that "Hilton lent her name to a chain" may have nothing to do with any accomplishment of Hilton's. It was, for all we know from citation, arranged by her manager. The fact she failed to attend promotions is suggestive of her level of involvement. The opening clause of "Products and endorsements" about purses cited a reference [1] that doesn't even use the word "purse". (I just removed it.) These marketing techniques to circumvent the more blatant Wikipedia infractions are so well known they are presented to marketing groups. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing unreliable sources is good, but making a value judgment about licensing and endorsements isn't our job, so your point is getting lost in the noise. We rely on good secondary sources to avoid having this discussion in the first place. Are they encyclopedic? It depends, on a case by case basis. However, as a businesswoman, major endorsements are notable and encyclopedic, and have been covered by RS. You have a bee in your bonnet about them, and that's fine. Everyone has a pet peeve or two. But unless you can show that Hilton's people are creating accounts to add material, most of your arguments are pretty weak. Products and endorsements are relevant to this topic, and as long as the RS are good and informative, they stay. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are issues with your statements in part, and in whole. Practically every sentence of "Products and endorsements" has some kind of problem, and the concept that it's ok for someone who is a self-advertiser to self-advertise in Wikipedia is specious. It's apparent here that people who have commercial interests in promoting Hilton, Hilton's fans, and people who obviously have not checked the references (as I did) are playing the Wikipedia system to circumvent rules and guidelines in such a way that would not be allowed in a featured article.

A valid case I found is where the person who was the topic of the article established her own business in her field of expertise -- and even then this doesn't give carte blanche for the article to discuss her other business ventures -- Jenna Jameson's business section is almost entirely about ClubJenna. I did a random statistical sample that suggests the overwhelming number of celebrity Wiki articles don't have endorsements. The few counter examples you gave have far less endorsement material than this article.

Another problem with indiscriminate references to non-encyclopedic celeb material, such as the number of days Hilton's dog was lost, is that there is no logical end to it. It's not difficult for marketing departments and vested interests with millions to buy brief articles that can then be cited in Wikipedia. Hilton's endorsement section largely uses such brief articles. I don't understand how you can consider cogent a reference on a page that requires registration to read more than the critically encyclopedic statement "The collection, inspired by Ms. Hilton's cutting edge style" [2] Piano non troppo (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If the sources are good, they should stay; If not remove them. But what you really need to do is take this up with the biography project. Research comparing this article to others might help you, but I don't think it is relevant. In the final analysis, each article is treated on its own merits, not solely in comparison to others. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Main picture

The current main picture seems to be altered and composed, if you zoom in to her face and especially the right side seems awfully odd. It seems like her head was put together of 2 different files! Skin tones don't completely match and especially the perspective seems to be off. If this would be the case, I don't think this should be the proper main wikipage picture. Hans (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see the effect you mean, but I think the picture is natural. She's being lit by bright lighting on the right side of her face, making the pore structure of her skin more obvious on the right side. That, combined with her wandering left eye gives the impression of a splice. Look at the light reflection in both of her eyes: it triangulates properly on the light source causing the unbalanced effect.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Paris is just a plastic piece of fake material

Sexuality

Some sites I have looked at says Hilton is a bisexual, is that true? I don't belive it is. Tarheelz123 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...the only site I've seen this on is NNDB, and I wouldn't call that a reliable source for potentially controversial material. I don't know if it's true or not, but in accordance with WP:BLP, it shouldn't be added to the article unless there are good sources to back it up. Acalamari 21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheerleader?...

Also one of the categories Hilton is in is American Cheerleaders. When was she a cheerleader? I knew she played field hockey but I never heard of her cheering. Tarheelz123 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)