Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 6

Page protection

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

Typically articles are protected when they have been subjected to vandalism. In this case, Paris Hilton is a hot topic of controversy right now, so apparently this article is attracting the pranksters. It's not fully protected, however; you just have to be an "established user," meaning you've been editing on Wikipedia for a while. I have no problems editing. And as for how long the protection will last, the answer is until someone removes the template. ;-) --Nonstopdrivel 13:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please define "a while." Is it safe to assume there might be exceptions to a set amount of time? William (Bill) Bean 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to be able to edit a semi-protected page, you have to have a user account no less than 4 days old. This, among other things, stops people from having their account blocked for vandalism, then repeatedly creating new accounts to vandalise the same article, each one being blocked in turn. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hotel

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

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

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

Miscarriage

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

Inaccuracy

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

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

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

I disagree with WacoJacko and Nolefan32. Paris was well known, at least in California, long before the sex video even appeared via virus video. William (Bill) Bean 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Inaccuracy? How about the article identify her sister as her brother and her brothers as her sisters? This is why Wikipedia gets sneered at as a resource. Jonball52 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

...What? The article clearly says (as of your edit to this talk page), "Her younger sister is Nicky Hilton, and her younger brothers are Barron Hilton II, and Conrad Hilton III.". Perhaps you misread the article? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

South Park

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

70.107.41.38 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

After Ascent and CEDU, where was she jailed?

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

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

Covergaard 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Released from jail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can anyone get her mugshot posted on her page?

Deletion of negative information

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

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

Negative information, especially controversial material, about living persons needs to be well sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. Acalamari 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

She's going back to jail!

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTICE

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

Remove the Popular Culture

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

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

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

Recording Artist?

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

I most definitely concurr with you on that....does seem a bit of a stretch.WacoJacko 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? She's recorded an album that placed reasonably high in the charts, which indicates that she is a recording artist. Can you explain why she isn't a recording artist, despite having recorded an album?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, one somewhat unsuccessful album does not a "recording artist" make. Perhaps the section could be titled "Album." Exploding Boy 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say 'somewhat unsuccessful'? It reached into the top 10 in a variety of charts and sold ~600,000 copies. Also, as it was only released mid 2006 and she's pretty much screwed her life up since then, there is the possibility that she would release another (god help us!). The title is appropriate IMO.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

600,000 copies in a year is not really considered a success; the article itself says that sales have been "somewhat low."

Also, "According to June 2007 news reports Hilton has been dropped by Warner Bros. Records, because single and album sales did not meet expectations. Furthermore, a Warner reprensentative was quoted saying, "We are not expecting any new Paris Hilton material in the foreseeable future."[5]

She was widely panned for the album and at this point it doesn't seem very likely that she'll release any more music. So, one relatively unsuccessful album and no future prospects do not a "recording artist" make. Exploding Boy 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. "Recording artist" implies some sort of ongoing activity. A better description of Hilton would be "one-hit wonder" -- and from discussions I heard on various media outlets, it appears that a large proportion of her sales were fueled largely by desire for comical relief. People just wanted to laugh at how bad she was. Hilton's album brought her ridicule, not acclaim. --Nonstopdrivel 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even "one-hit wonder" implies commercial success. Think of those one-hit wonder songs: "I'm Too Sexy." "Come On Eileen." Even "Ice Ice Baby." They were played incessantly. Not so with Paris Hilton's efforts. I think "Album" is a fine subheading. "Recording artist," not so much. Exploding Boy 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only real justification for it is her expressed intention to sign more artists. Since she's been dropped by WB, it's probably a moot point. --Nonstopdrivel 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton recorded an album which charted in no fewer than 25 countries, including the U.S., and had singles that hit #1 in nine countries, again including the U.S., with accompanying music videos that continue to have global play, along with the music tracks. The album is being distributed by one of the big four music companies and she has co-writing credit on several of the songs. By virtue of the release of this one album, she is a recording artist, regardless of its success or your opinion of the music itself. However, the album has overall had moderate success and some notable positive reviews (All Music Guide: "Make no mistake, Paris is a very good pop album, at times deliberately reminiscent of Blondie, Madonna, and Gwen Stefani..." and "...track-for-track it's more fun than anything released by Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson, and a lot fresher, too.") Since when is it required to have a runaway smash hit album (specifically in the U.S.) that is universally critically acclaimed or the promise of a follow-up just to qualify someone as a recording artist? Her label deciding to drop her means nothing--Mariah Carey (the best selling female pop artist of all time) was famously dropped by Virgin Records. Hilton's album is currently in release and it continues to chart worldwide. It should be fairly obvious that yes, Paris Hilton is a recording artist. WorthWatching 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A cogent, well-thought-out response, WorthWatching. You may rest assured, however, that there is no currently serious effort afoot to remove the "recording artist" title. I think the rumblings on this talk page are more philosophical griping than anything substantive. --Nonstopdrivel 19:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Recording artist" implies some kind of continuity, or longevity, or, I dunno, some kind of catalogue of work. One somewhat unsuccessful album, though? Exploding Boy 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some people seem to be missing the point IMHO. This is not about success but that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The fact that she has screwed up her life from her first album until now and that she's still young etc etc is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we don't prejudge people. She may or may not be a recording artist one day. But it seems to me it's highly questionable if she is one now simply because she's only released one album. Note that success is largely irrelevant her. Even if the album had been the number one since it's release until now she still wouldn't be a recording artist IMHO. If and when she becomes a recording artist then we will retitle the section. Until she does, we're not going to call it that just because some contributors feel she may be one in the future. For example a lot of pop idols from the various idol shows throughout the world have similar careers releasing one or perhaps 2 albums with mild success and everyone soon forgets about them. They're not IMHO recording artists. I would say 3 albums is the minimum before someone could reliably be called a recording artist. Nil Einne 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, that seems almost completely arbitrary. Why 3? Why not 2, why not 4? Seems completely random. The fact still remains - she produced an album, she has not stated that she isn't producing any more and we don't have authority on whether or not she will. She is a recording artist unless she says otherwise.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mugshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps these "abusive" photographs of her would suffice: [6] [7] Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may be fair use, but we already have a free image of Paris Hilton, and this image is not free. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria. Mdwh 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I see now that interestingly, L.A. Sheriff's dept. releases images as public domain, in which case this isn't an issue. Mdwh 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That's great Oglahai. I think it SHOULD definitely be included. It is public record, and it helps explain her arrest, which like or not is ALL OVER CNN.WacoJacko 08:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it help explain her arrest? Mdwh 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Print Media

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

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

Speculation

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

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

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

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

External links

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

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

http://stockguru.com/paris/

Thats funny, I think it would be o.k. to set this link on the article.

Errr, no. --Yamla 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The jail section is biased as hell in favor of Hilton

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

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

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

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

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

The section is completely biased - there is no need to provide a comment by the sheriff stating that her "celebrity status" resulted in her getting "special treatment." If anything, the sentence was too light - as she was already arrested once for drunk driving, and TWICE for driving without a license. If you're going to include comments in favor of her, then you should also include comments against her - otherwise the article is biased. Hence why Localzuk should not have re-added the "sourced (biased) information." Viper2k6 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is completely factual. The county jail system is under federal mandate to relieve overcrowding and poor medical care. In fact in his televised interview Baca cited overcrowding specifically before even mentioning any medical reasons for release. His statement that early release is the norm rather than an exception, has also been verified by the Los Angeles Times. . So the sheriff's comments are not only valid they are essential to bringing all the facts about this incident to this entry. William (Bill) Bean 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Medical problems

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

Legal section

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

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

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

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

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

Legal problems

Restraining order

Driving violations

Jail sentence

Copyright violation

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

This is how it appears with my edits:

Legal problems

Restraining order

Driving violations

Copyright violation

Jail sentence

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

This is how it is to me:

# 5 Legal problems

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

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

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

Okay. Here's how it looks for me.

Exploding Boy's version

Firefox: TOC, section

Internet Explorer: TOC, section

Other version

Firefox: TOC, section

Internet Explorer: TOC, section

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

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

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

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

References and links needs cleaning

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

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

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

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

Fantastic work

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

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

A good article is a good article. Everyone, please disregard the above comment of a possible sock puppet, for which I'll file a Check user soon. Keep up the good work everyone. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary! This article needs a tremendous amount of copyediting before it anywhere remotely merits FA status. It is riddled with punctuation errors, tortured grammar, and poor choice of technical terms (I have substituted "eponymous" for "self-titled" and "amateur" for "home-made"). I'll do some work on it today, but as the whole topic bores me, I'm not sure how much time I'll waste on it. For a deserved FA article, check out El Greco -- now that's a superb piece. --Nonstopdrivel 19:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that the article is much better than it was when I first saw it. It's not perfect, but it's better. Acalamari 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've no idea what your talking about, presumably some category. She was convicted of drunk driving multiple times, which quite serious in many people's eyes. If there is a category for people convict of drunk driving, she should obviously be included. But drunk driving is still just an "I'm a moron with no self control" type crime. Any real serious categories for convicts will be for far more serious things, i.e. people like Enron executives. JeffBurdges 08:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying was in regards to including it in the opening sentence, as Halcyon 09 did here. My rambling point was, it shouldn't be included in the lead sentence. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

NY Daily News reports on medical condition

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

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

New York Daily News is not a reliable source. --Yamla 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch I agree!  :)----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not a realiable source? I'm not claiming that it should be considered as such, just curious how you make the distindtion. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Civic involvement

What's going to become of this section? —Viriditas | Talk 14:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not in the business of predicting the future (if I could, I'd be making huge profits in the stock market, rather than waste time on Wikipedia), but my guess is that there will be nothing new to report in this section for the next month or so. Beyond that, who knows what other civic involvements she will take up. --However whatever 15:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a new source to update this section:[9]. Paris discusses her plans for future civic involvement: "She said she would like to help in the fields of breast cancer — her grandmother had breast cancer — or multiple sclerosis. Her father's mother suffers from that disease. She thought she might get toy companies to build a kind of Paris Hilton playhouse, where sick children might come, and the toy companies could donate toys..." —Viriditas | Talk 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that until she actually does those things, we should not include that in the civic involvement section. The section is titled "Civic involvment", not "Civic involvement she would like to participate in the future". I have already added this interview, in which she promises not to "act dumb" to ther personal section. --However whatever 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the same criteria; she's promising not to act dumb in the future, and she's also considering civic involvement. I think it is perfectly reasonable to add it to the civ. section. Let's get the opinion of other active editors. —Viriditas | Talk 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the two sections. The personal section is about her, so if she says that she will change her way and plans to be a different person, that's relevant for that section. The Civic involvement section is for, just what the title says, civic involvment. Let her get involved, and then add it to the section. Why put the cart before the horse? --However whatever 20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's get the opinion of other editors, ok? The entire aritcle is about her, and many if not most biographical articles discuss the future plans of the person in question without any problems. —Viriditas | Talk 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you so strongly believe that all her future plans are relevant and important, add them to the paragraph about the Barbara Walters interview in the personal section. I guess it would be relevant there. If she actually acts on her plans, we could transfer from the personal section to the Civic involvement section. --However whatever 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No strong beliefs over here. I like the way the page is turning out, and I have no interest in starting a dispute. I just wanted to get an idea of what others think. I see stuff like this all the time on bio pages, where an actor, director, comedian, or writer is talking about their future. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people in jail say they are going to do things, I say wait and see if she follows through with it. Just my opinion of course. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, the day she went to jail I was going to add a comment here saying, "How long before she turns to God?" but I didn't think it was appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, I almost typed that too and caught myself. :)----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 11:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are these typos?

In the MMOG World of Warcraft, Haris Pilton can be found in the World's End Tavern of the lower part of Shattrath City accompanied by her dog Tinkerbell, and her job tag reads "Socialite". ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that as that seems deliberate, and most typos are accidental, it wouldn't really be considered a typo. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedic article. --Nonstopdrivel 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Death

http://abc.net.au.newsitems.200706.999584001215588457.851154.html.macksfoto.com/s1942069.htm

True? False? -Nonviolence 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoax? [10][11] —Viriditas | Talk 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

-Edit- No, the article I showed mentions suicide as the reason, not murder, and has more specifics. This might be real, and the circumstances may have simply been bad timing. Either way, we'll know in the morning. -Nonviolence 04:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope it's a hoax. Both stories take place down under, so that's a big clue. —Viriditas | Talk 04:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit more insight is that one article doesn't mention a death and is from a noted hoax site. The other (and one I posted) got its information from reuters. I suppose someone should take a look around the reuters site -- although their information is first fed to news sites/stations. Yeah, it's unlikely to be true given this, and that no major outlet has picked it up, but it could happen. -Nonviolence 05:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoax. Scroll to the bottom. It says: "DISCLAIMER: Information contained on this web page is purely for entertainment and the content is NOT true." -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note this site is macksfoto.com, not abc.com. --h2g2bob (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, the CNN link goes to mycoalproductions.com. -- Zanimum 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I always trust macksfoto.com when it comes to breaking news. Read the URL next time someone gives you a link to zomgbreakingnews, please. --Golbez 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jail Time

I don't understand, was she reassigned to her original 45-day sentence, or is she serving her 23day sentence, there are conflicting sources. Rodrigue 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the inmate locator (LA Inmate Locater Service), you will notice that she would be free on June, 26. You will also notice that they have moved her secretly, so the media is covering the wrong prison. But there is still time for the fundatalist judge to alter her terms. According to LA Times, she would serve far more than most people would serve - convicted for similar offences. Only very violent criminal would actually serve as much of their time as her. Hilton will do more time than most, analysis finds (LA Times, June 14, by Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers) Covergaard 11:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried the inmate locator and it didn't work at all, so I don't know where the information came from that she's been secretly moved (and why would they put that on a publicly accessible inmate locator anyway?). As for the article, it fails to mention several points. First, she didn't just violate her probation. She drove drunk, she had her license suspended, she violated the terms of her probation at least twice, she didn't attend her court-ordered treatment, and she was late to court. It comes to this: judicial discretion allows judges to impose whatever sentence they feel is appropriate, within the sentencing guidelines. I don't think we should be quoting this LA Times article in our own article; it's clearly biased in Hilton's favour (for example, it emphasises that 60% of inmates with similar charges only served about 4 days; it fails to point out that that clearly means that 40% serve longer sentences). Exploding Boy 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest thing I've read in regards to her location is that she's been returned to the jail, but has been temporarily placed its medical ward. Exploding Boy 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy Editing Template

I have added the {{copyedit}} template to this article, as it is in dire need of basic cleanup. I will contribute some changes today, but the regular editors need to monitor contributions more closely. This article sounds almost as whimsical as a tabloid at times. Do not revert this template without good reason -- i.e., significant improvements to the technical quality of the article. --Nonstopdrivel 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edited to {{tl}} template or this talk will be added to cleanup list) --h2g2bob (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done some editing and removed the template. If you believe the article still needs editing, please list where you think the problems are. I think the article is pretty good. --However whatever 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare the changes I made in the "Recording artist" section alone -- numerous very basic errors, including spelling and punctuation. Furthermore, this article doesn't read like an encyclopedia; it reads like a bunch of anecdotes culled from human interest stories. --Nonstopdrivel 20:48, 14 June 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). --However whatever 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bold I have been, as I implied in the message above, and I have significantly reworked most sections now. It at least has some semblance of organization. --Nonstopdrivel 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Parody

If the YouTube incident, which was reported in major media outlets, was not notable, how were any of the other parodies notable? Anyone can create parodies in any media. --Nonstopdrivel 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actress

I have majorly reorganized the Actress section, improving consistency, logic, and flow. However, there is a snippet of a sentence, possibly orphaned in some previous effort, that I'd appreciate if someone could repair:

"She also earned a nomination for "Best Frightened Performance" at the 2006."

At the 2006 what? It's obviously some sort of awards ceremony, but which one? Any help would be appreciated. --Nonstopdrivel 06:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

-The 2006 MTV Movie Awards. It's listed on the Wikipedia page for the event. Oglahai 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilligans Island : The Musical

Should it be added that shes been offered the role of ginger in the las vegas production of gilligans island : the musical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.104.109 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source for this? Acalamari 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jail time bias

Why do we need this sentence?:

Sheriff Baca commented on the release saying, "My message to those who don't like celebrities is that punishing celebrities more than the average American is not justice." According to Baca, under normal circumstances, Hilton would not have served any time in jail, and he added that "The special treatment, in a sense, appears to be because of her celebrity status ... She got more time in jail".

It doesn't contribute anything, except make the article biased in favor of Hilton. The facts should be enough for the reader to decide whether or not she was unfairly punished - we don't need to include the opinions of those directly involved which have an inherent bias of their own.

Can we please remove that quote? Viper2k6 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote is relevant - it is by the sheriff involved, making a comment about Paris Hilton... How is it not relevant. If you have a comment that counters it then add it with a source but other than that it is a perfectly good sourced statement.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

eponymous

Why is this word used so much - it almost sounds comical. What ever happened to "self-titled" album?208.104.241.47 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Michelle

Technically, "self-titled" could mean "titled by herself". Eponymous is less ambiguous. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is more common in music to use the term 'Self Titled' when referring to albums released using the same name as the artist/band. For example, Korn's first album is very commonly referred to as self titled (or shortened as ST). [12]

Also, if you do a google search with paris hilton and the 2 terms , self titled has over double the results.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 its 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 [13] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrzqxgl (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.127.141 (talk) 14:56, 9 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.

References

<references />

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 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.127.141 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy triple m (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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.[14] 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)

If you actually read this page you could see and editor pointing out there was no proof of lie. --IceHunter (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (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)

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)

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 [15] 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: [16][17][18] — 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)

She was also the architect of the road-map for peace in the Middle East, inventor of pop-corn chicken, has memorized pi to the 342 decimal place and she does a mean party trick with loaves and fishes.--Wangpangu (talk) 01:08, 8 August 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)

Well it's not there now so I'm assuming that it's been removed again. The asinine and sycophantic tone of this article does Wikipedia no credit at all. The nature of many of the comments here in the discussion page leads me to conclude that there are a lot more infatuated Paris fans out there than I had realised. To be honest, I suspect (and hope) that Ms. Hilton is sufficiently self aware enough to realise how inappropriate such devotion is and would encourage such people to turn their attention to more deserving individuals who actually make a difference in the world.--Wangpangu (talk) 01:16, 8 August 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)

It adds persecutive to the calibre of her projects and i would like to suggest that you watch a few of these films - the script is not her fault but good god she should read them and say no! - however although i believe the information is relevant i shall not re-add the information as to avoid a senseless war over the subject - just want YOU to know the films ALL SUCK!!!! Adrian.russell177 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:39, 10 August 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: [19] 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)

Probably there are two reasons: the Paris fans are happy to whitewash the article and the BLP enforcers are being cautious. Probably if someone really wanted to duke it out, the mention could be expanded and even introduced into the lede while complying with BLP. After all, if you search through the NY Times archive you will find plenty of mention of the sex tape whenever Paris Hilton is mentioned. For example, in this article, it's mentioned that "Ms. Hilton's best-known work has been an infamous sex tape that features her in flagrante with a boyfriend", and in [20] it is mentioned "Ms. Hilton, famous for a sex tape that is still circulating on the Internet". The New York Times apparently considers that one of the prominent things that ought to be mentioned about her is the sex tape. --C S (talk) 02:26, 7 August 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 the article. Acalamari 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Known For"

Just edited the "most known for" section. I think it is clear that Paris Hilton gained notoriety both through her role in the TV series The Simple Life as well as her role in the infamous sex tape. Feel free to contribute if you disagree, but I think it is worth noting, especially since it gets no mention in the opening paragraphs. Cheers, Intellectual11 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Intellectual11

I reverted for now: Biographies of living persons should be handled with great care, and a "perhaps" followed by "sex tape", especially in the intro, isn't good enough. The tape is mentioned in her article, but the "best known" bit has to be rock solid to include it up there, in my opinion. --Amalthea (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading WP:BLP again, I only allowed "perhaps" because I did not want to definitively say that she IS most well known for the sex tape. Some people might only recognize her for her work on "the Simple Life." The addition is not meant as a smear. It is a verifiable fact. She even agreed to gain notoriety royalties from it on her own terms (i.e. "One Night in Paris"). I think it should be changed back, and would like an editor's opinion on this. Intellectual11 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Intellectual11

Please see my comments two sections above in "Why so little mention of the sex tape?" as I believe they are relevant to your position. --C S (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see the section "Sex tape needs expansion" four sections above by yet another person. The most glaringly obvious thing when I first saw this article today was how hard it was to find any mention of the sex tape. I suppose the reasoning is that most people ought to already know about it, but it's mighty peculiar that something of such notability in someone's life (it's essentially what started Hilton's "famous for being famous" career) is barely mentioned. I myself think someone that doesn't know about the whole Paris Hilton phenomenon (and believe it or not, there are many such people all over the world) would be greatly disserviced by the current state of the article. Oh well. That's my 2 cents. Maybe I'll stop by in a couple years and see if anything's changed (doubtful). --C S (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a non-American and so I cannot speak for the state of Hilton's celebrity in the US. However, outside the USA Paris Hilton most certainly only became famous because of the sex tape. I remember that the point of interest about the tape was that, at the time, she was a Hilton heiress "gone bad". Nobody had a clue who she was before the sex tape and unfortunately her fans must accept it is a major part of her celebrity. As such it is not covered sufficiently in this article.--Wangpangu (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton's rebutal to John McCain's campaign ad

In the section on Paris' response to John McCain's ad, I think it should be noted that Paris was wearing a revealing one piece swimsuit [Spam removed]. 64.248.61.226 (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't. As a matter of fact I removed the whole section because so far, it's not a notable event in her life. --Amalthea^Talk 08:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is not the only criterion, is it? It may well be a notable event in the political history of the US! Even the political pundits were rather impressed with the way she handled the whole affair and political candidates might think twice before just using people like Paris for their campaign ever again. Jcwf (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It may well be is pretty much the definition of non-verifiability. I have no strong opinion whether this should be mentioned at all or not, but I'd really like to see some WP:RS talking about it, e.g. to source the "The video was a response …" bit.
The "her response impressed many outside her immediate fans by its eloquence and made clear that she does not allow herself to be used." definitely has to go IMO. It's unsourced, and POV.
Amalthea^Talk 16:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The McCain campaign has responded to the "ad", which might make it more notable--but if it were up to me, yeah, I'd wait a week and see whether this has any significance. If the "Obama/celebrity" ad has staying power as an issue, PH's response might be notable, but it's too early to say; in any event, in that case it might make more sense to mention this on the United States presidential election, 2008 page, instead of here. In the meantime, I removed the very POVy "her response impressed many" sentence, and added in the McCain response (with a link)--but like I said, I'd be just as happy removing the whole incident from her bio. -- Narsil (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite likely Paris Hilton is going to get more votes in 2008 than a good many of the 200+ people who file for the presidency every election. If she decides to have more fun with it, the effort might actually be noteworthy. And who said this is an anti-McCain commercial? Paris' demography of influence was mostly going to go Obama or stay home. I don't think she pushed very many people into the camp of "the other guy", quite the opposite. Obama, obviously, isn't somebody who's worth Paris' time to learn his name. That's a lot worse than the "wrinkly white guy" who at least gets a mention of a distinguishing feature. TMLutas (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If it needs saying--Ms. Hilton is constitutionally ineligible to be president. (The minimum age is 35, she's 27.) I don't think she's planning to really "run", even in the minimal sense of "filing to be on the ballot somewhere". The video's a joke, that's all. If it's noteworthy, it's only because the McCain campaign responded to it. -- Narsil (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure she'll beat historically popular ineligibles like "Donald Duck" and "Mickey Mouse" however her ineligibility isn't going to matter much to her vote total I suspect. TMLutas (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So true, i.e., I am voting for her. But consider also: people do turn their lives around. Maybe this is a wake-up call to Paris that something she embodies has real value. We can hope. She has a lot of money. Maybe, just maybe, she also has brains.Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: There is now a WP article "Paris Hilton energy plan."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice re proposed merger from Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad into this article

The AfD where this is being discussed is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton energy plan. Thx.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar errors

Someone kindly fix these two errors, since the article is protected. 1. "She is best-known through the television series The Simple Life." This should be "best known" (two words). 2. "however, in an unexpected turn..." The word "however" begins a new clause and should be a new sentence or follow a semicolon. Following a comma is not acceptable. 86.153.15.186 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell 1) "best-known" can be written with a hyphen [21], and 2) there already is a semicolon preceding the "however", not a comma. --Amalthea^Talk 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, multiple-word adjectives have a hyphen when used attributively, as in your link, but not when used predicatively, as in the article. So, I've taken out the hyphen. VoluntarySlave (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I must admit - what else would you see in relation to Paris Hilton?

Filmography

• Wishman (1991)
• Sweetie Pie (2000)
• Zoolander (2001; cameo)
• Nine Lives (2002)
• QIK2JDG (2002)
• 1 Night in Paris (2003, Sex video)
• L.A. Knights (2003)
• Wonderland (2003)
• The Cat in the Hat (2003)
• Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (2004)
• The Hillz (2004)
• Raising Helen (2004)
• House of Wax (2005)
• Bottoms Up (film) (2006)
• Pledge This! (2006)
• The Hottie and the Nottie (2008)
• Repo! the Genetic Opera (2008)
• Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad (viral video, 2008)

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) I believe it's inclusion encyclopedic but before I restore I'm posting the question here so that people who believe it doesn't make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia can search for applicable guideline cites to favor their position. :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It's unsourced. Citations to IMDB are inadequate since they are not checked or verified.
2. It's trivial. A list of every movie she's ever been does not contribute significantly to our understanding of her life. All notable movies can be mentioned in the text above.
3. It is nonneutral, since I (and probably others) would argue that a sex tape and a youtube video should not be represented under a filmography since they are not films and, with the sex tape in particular, gives undue weight to those items. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Note re #3, Per the article One Night In Paris, Hilton settled with the tapes marketers for an undisclosed sum, thus OK's the tape's marketing. And as for Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad, Funny or Die publishes/hosts the videos it produces, themselves.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is that relevant? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking to the professional marketing status of the porno video and the satire video.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yea right. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Both have wikilinked articles, too. Anyway, if you're not going to contest the issue, I'll go ahead and readd it. Thanks.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I do and have contested it. Do not readd it without consensus. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:BRD. Deletion of longstanding content is the "B" here. Yet before my going directly to "R", as a courtesy I suggested you to "D", which you've declined. So I'll go ahead and do the revert of your bold deletion; you're still free at any time to commence a "D" of my "R" of your "B" here on this page, however.

You deleted, saying its not referenced material, isn't notable, and the porno and spoof video's might reflect poorly on Hilton (or something like that). I don't know if you're really resorting to, eg, an "I-DON'TLIKE-Pee Wee Herman-so-I-don't-think-Herman-should-have-a-filmography" -type argument, or if there's really policy or precedents that inform your deletion here, so I ask you to point me to something. Which you don't. Then I respond to your BLP argument with regard to Hilton's porn tape. Which you tell me "Yea right." (Which means apparently that you agree?)

In any case, unless you're actually suggesting that Hilton didn't appear in these films, I'd suggest you obtain consensus that her acting career is not notable before deleting this content again.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• First and foremost WP:BRD is a stupid essay. Second of all, it's an essay. There is no binding force behind it. I have given my reasons why this material should be kept out of this article, I don't know what exactly you missed in all of that, but my rationale is pretty clear. Your response to the concerns about BLP violations are irrelevant, invalid and inappropriate in the context of this discussion. I fully and completely reject them. If you have any further questions about my stance on that issue, please feel free to ask. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds, you seem a reasonably competent editor nonetheless your (habitual?) bluster is offputting -- at least to me; In any case, I've decided to abandon all editing on Paris Hilton related pages.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've one (1) delete, ever in my lifetime, in the Paris Hilton#Filmography section yet Cumulus Clouds professes to believe I'm flirting with exceeding 3RR? (PS People, a humble request: unless imperative, leave me out of discussions here so I don't have to respond here anymore?... I'd appreciate it.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the filmography. It is normal practice here to have filmographies of actors, and sourcing is generally not required for each film. IMDB is a reliable enough source for the existence of films as far as I know; if anyone has a legitimate doubt that she actually appeared in a given film they are free to dispute it or conduct further research, but deleting the person's entire body of work on claim that it's unsourced and then edit warring over it seems misguided and frankly a little WP:POINTy (though I have no idea what the point may be). BRD is the normal editing practice for Wikipedia but if any editor wishes to reject it they should find some other calm and collegial way to improve articles - revert warring while leaving "final warning" messages on their content adversary's talk page is certainly not the way. Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:POINT is the last refuge of editors who have lost all their rational arguments and being decrying the fairness of the process. I want you to explain to me what part of any of these edits could, in any way, be seen as disruptive to the project. Then I want you to explain to me, calmly and collegially, why you have any reason to suspect I would knowingly subvert policy to demonstrate a point. Then, when neither of those succeed, you can apologize for attacking my credibility. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Wikidemon and think the filmography should be restored Theserialcomma (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Best known for....

"She is perhaps best known through her appearence on the television series The Simple Life." --- is this actually true? Without at all trying to be silly, isn't she actually best known for being a rich party girl who appeared in a sex tape and spent some time in prison? Isn't everything else she's done really secondary to (and the result of) that? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

in my opinion, she's probably best known for her sex tape. however, unless there is a reliable source that states what she is 'perhaps best known for,' then maybe this sentence is original research and should be edited/removed. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What I was thinking too. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vadalism in Discography

umm... there's a "Horrible Noises" section under her discography. Somebody should probably remove it. But i'm new to wiki editting so I don't know how. 203.117.90.6 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks. I undid the vandalism. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

This page has been hacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.43.69 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I undid the vandalism. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)