Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Inheritance

Entry for Paris Hilton starts by saying she's not an heir to the Hilton chain, and won't inherit as it goes to another family branch. Entry for Richard Hilton says her father is heir, ergo she can. Which is right? I need to know in order to decide whether to boycott Hilton hotels or not.

Siblings

I don't understand why I can't find any information on Paris Hilton's brothers, Barron and Conrad. How old are they? Most of all-- Who are they? Sandy June 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Paris in Playboy

Someone who knows how needs to take down that image of "Paris Hilton on the Cover of Playboy". That is not her! It is a look alike they used. She never posed for Playboy.

Care to cite a source for that info? Cause it certainly looks like her, Playboy says it's her, so why wouldn't it be her? Dismas|^(talk) 23:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And just because she's on the cover doesn't mean she posed nude in it. 134.114.59.41 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Socialite?

Paris Hilton should not be labeled a "socialite" on Wikipedia. To put her in the same line as Brooke Astor and some of the Vanderbilt ladies is just absurd. Ms. Hilton is not of the same ilk as a "socialite."

Valid point, but I don't agree. In the old days the "social pages" of the newspapers were more prominent -- I think -- and average people followed the parties and cruises and so forth of the Astors, Vanderbilts, etc. more closely. Hilton etc. fulfill that niche now, granted that the Astors et al were a lot more elegant, but times change. Herostratus 08:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

    There is no point in arguing about this subject because no matter what your opinion is, there is no way to find proof. Paris could be lying or Playboy could be lying. There's really no way to tell.

South Park

?? Did she lend her voice to the South Park episode, or was it a parody?

• No, Paris Hilton did not voice her character on South Park. Most of the celebrity characters on the show are impersonated (often badly, as the show's opening disclaimer points out), particularly when the portrayal is so unflattering. Pogo747
• It was hilarious, though. -WindFish 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, she deserves the criticism.

Image Issues

Is that image realy encylopedia-appropriate? It looks more like a catalog image than an actual photo of Paris...but then I don't know Paris well. Something about the image looks cheesy and a little off-putting. Jwrosenzweig 23:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• I agree, an actual picture would serve it much better. But in the meanwhile I guess it's ok. Sarge Baldy 23:16, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

What's with the Maxim photos of her on the site? Not that pics of her clubbing and doing her thing are any better. --Madchester 19:47, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I guess there's really no need for this sort of disambiguation:
Paris Hilton should not be confused with The Paris Hilton hotel, located at 18 Avenue De Suffren, Paris 75740, France, which is another cheap public accomodation.
Sad, though<G>-Nunh-huh 22:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is hilarious!

Sex Video and the Simple Life

Should we mention the connection between the "sex video" thing and the announcement of her reality show thing? Seems the video got a lot of people to check out the farm life show. --Uncle Ed 16:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For sure. Most people found out who Paris was when the sex video came out. I know I did. The sex video thing was in all the maistream papers. I even saw Zoolander a few years before (which she was in) and had know idea who she was until the sex video came out. dave 01:25, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, they did occur around the same time and if you can put something together on it I think it would fit. Sarge Baldy 05:28, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Rick Salomon

My apologies for screwing up the spelling of Rick Salomon's name. I saw it spelled Solomon in a newspaper and I mistakenly assumed it was misspelled with an "a". I should have done more verification (although I see there are several hundred thousand online references that also misspell it Solomon). MK 05:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Acting Career

Since when does Paris Hilton have a "credible" acting career? This isn't even a matter of personal opinion. Her cameo in Zoolander was blink and you'll miss, and all of her cameo scenes in Win a Date With Tad Hamilton! were cut from the movie. A couple cameos and minor roles here and there does not a credible actress make. Most people don't take her seriously.

Whether or not people take her seriously, Hollywood appears to be doing so. She had star billing in House of Wax, and according to IMDB has two other films in post-production. Cleduc 20:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Family and other Background

I'm posting this in case there's any further question:

Q. "Is Paris' grandfather Barron Hilton or his brother, Conrad N. "Nicky" Hilton, Jr., 'cause in her book, Paris said Conrad Hilton, Jr., was?"

A. I've looked at Paris' picture book, Confessions of an Heiress: A Tongue-in-Chic Peek Behind the Pose myself, and I would note that she also said, on Page 157, "As I said earlier, it's okay to make up your lineage."

How sad she didn't even mention the name of her grandmother. Perhaps she'd never read it in all the crap that's been written about her. My guess is that Miss Paris has probably given more thought to being an heiress than she has to her family tree.

I've read in several reliable sources that Barron Hilton is her grandfather. There's also the book Paris Hilton: The Naked Truth by George Mair, Chapter 6, "Hilton Family History and Where the Money Came From," which states:

"Two men who had a profound impact on the life Paris Hilton leads today are her great grandfather, Conrad Hilton, and her grandfather, Barron Hilton. Conrad Hilton made the family enormously rich on paper but didn't believe in leaving any money to his heirs. Barron Hilton didn't give a damn what his father thought and circumvented the old man's will and made not only himself rich but his descendants as well, including Paris. If Conrad's will had remained as he left it, Paris today might be asking, 'Would you like fries with that?'"

So, when Conrad Hilton died in 1979 he left most of his wealth to the Catholic Church and other charities, expecting his children to work for theirs. Paris' grandpa, Barron Hilton, contested his father's will and won. Not only did his net worth jump to over $335,000,000, for him and "his descendants," he became the administrator of what the church got. His younger half-sister, Francesca Hilton, daughter of Zsa Zsa, lost her case and got nothing.

Conrad N. "Nicky" Hilton, Jr., was dead since 1969. His family, including wife Patricia, an heiress of Tulsa, Oklahoma, oil millions, got the same from the Conrad Hilton (Sr.) estate as Francesca, nothing. So Paris is not the granddaughter of Nicky and Patricia.

Another source:

Los Angeles Times, Feb. 11, 1964, "Nicky Hilton's Wife Files for Divorce, Custody"

"The second wife of hotel heir Conrad N. (Nicky) Hilton -- former Oklahoma oil heiress Patricia McClintock Hilton -- sued for divorce Monday in Santa Monica Superior Court.

Mrs. Hilton, 26, charged Hilton, 40, with causing her extreme mental and physical suffering. She asked for custody of their children, Conrad Nicholson Hilton, III, 4, and Michael Otis, 2."

So, Conrad Nicholson, III, was born in 1959. Michael was born in 1961. Paris' father's name is Richard "Rick" Hilton. He was born in 1955 and is not either of his 1st cousins.

Another source:

Los Angeles Times, Nov. 7, 1960, "Whole Family in Charger Act",

Under the photo:

"CHEERING for the Chargers are, from left, standing, Mrs. Barron Hilton, William, 12; Barron Hilton, Sharon, 6, and David Alan, 8. Seated are, from left, Richard, 5; Hawley Anne, 10, and Steven, 9."

I'd take most of what Paris, or her ghostwriter, said with a pinch of salt.

FredR 05:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Links

Sorry, but I had to delete two links from the page because they were being dis-allowed by the spam filter and I had to revert vandalism. I have had to add spaces to the addresses below or it wouldn't let me post them here either.

• http://www.paris hilton.com
• http://paris- hilton-video.blogspot.com

[[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 18:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyright? Rewrite?

Assuming the subject is really worth an encyclopedia article, it is probably worth better than a cut-and-paste ransom-note rewrite of [1], which is what this article appears to be. If anyone has some time and writing ability perhaps they could rewrite this sorry piece of plagiarism before AskMen gets huffy.

If someone wants to really shine I suppose they could try to dig up more pertinent facts than AskMen chose to publish too.

That's Hot

A recent VFD discussion, raised the question if it was possible, to include text from the article Thats hot somewhere in Paris Hilton as it doesn't provide enough info on its own yet. I request you take a look at the following text by User:69.138.186.210 and incorporate any useful info in the article, leaving an attribution on this talk page.

Thats Hot-phrase used by Simple Life Star, Paris Whitney Hilton. It is also common phrase used by teenagers and young adults. Term is commonly used by Paris Hilton on the reality show Simple Life when referring to objects, events, people, or situations Paris thinks are "cool" or in her case "hot". Term could be used for practically anything as does in the Simple Life. After asking a store worker what his name was, Paris replied, "Thats Hot." Today shirts can be bought from the very saying Paris Hilton made popular. Shirts read "Thats Hot" on the front and "You're Not!" on the back. Today the phrase is used by many teenagers when referring to "hot girls", "hot guys", "hot articles of clothing", or even "hot situations." Critcs refer to her as a bimbo and believe she is only using the term to sound young and cool. Paris Hilton changed a saying used by only her to a saying used by many americans in their conversational language. However, others believe she is a strong symbol for females succeeding in a mans world. Many of Paris' fans envy her and as a result change their behavior and conversational language to be closer to hers. After the phrase became mainstream, various opportunities opened up for Paris Hilton. Her reality TV show became a success.Confessions of an Heiress became one of the New York Times Best sellers. Paris Hilton was asked to host several award shows and take roles in several movies. While some use the phrase as means of conversation, others criticize for the amount of generality and lack of explicity. Others refuse to use the phrase because of the life style of founder.

-- Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot possibly see what value that adds to the article. She has a catchphrase, so? I read it for anything else of value and I see nothing, except possibly the short bit on Confessions of an Heiress. --Golbez 18:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why was she able to copywright "that's hot"?? She didn't event it, technically Nicole Richie said it before her. It's a common colloquialism that people have been saying since the 1960's. Lil' John popularized "Yeah!" and "Okay!" but he's not going to copywright THAT. How stupid is that?

Check out copyright. Anyone can copyright anything in the USA. For instance, I can combine three random words and copyright them: "Mongoose flyswatter lemonade", (C) Kasreyn 2006. Thing is, if you actually want to make someone pay you for using it, you need to come up with proof in court that it was your creation. Don't worry about it. Hilton doesn't have a prayer of convincing a judge that she ought to be paid when someone else says "that's hot". Claiming it's copyright is nothing but a vain conceit. What judges care about are when someone's published work is being duplicated by someone else without paying royalties. I'm sure there are thousands of examples of people publishing "that's hot" before Hilton, so, hot as it is, don't sweat it.  ;) -Kasreyn 09:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I just realized that I now have a much more reasonable claim to "mongoose flyswatter lemonade" than Paris has to "that's hot". *grin* -Kasreyn 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilton's address book, photos, notes stolen

Should I add info about the theft of Hilton's address book, photos and notes from her Sidekick by a T-Mobile hacker? I'm unsure if it should really belong here, the info has been mirrored on a few underground sites and was apparently stolen just yesterday. --Mrmiscellanious 20:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, add it, why not? Everyking 20:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright, added it near the end above links. Someone please make it more encyclopedia-ish (is that a word?) --Mrmiscellanious 22:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not included in our article:

"Aside from her sister, parents, best friend Nicole Richie and her model cousin, Paris's Blackberry is a B-list directory: Cher's son Elijah Blue Allman; Yoko Ono flack Elliot Mintz; Madonna's former partner Guy Oseary" -- user:zanimum

Why is it that people have reverted to previous versions when someone replaced "hacker" with the Seahorse Liberation Army stuff? I just reverted it again since that's what's been done by other users but I wanted to know the reasoning behind it. Dismas 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This person/group has claimed in an email to me that they are the hacker(s). When I reverted, I did so because I thought it was spam (the external link was just tossed awkwardly at the beginning of the section, see this diff). Since then, I've been scratching my head over the situation (I've also been busy IRL, so please pardon me for not bringing this up on talk sooner). Are there any neutral, reputable sources on the incident that actually mention them? - RedWordSmith 00:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How come a woman can be gay? Shouldn't she be called lesbian? --83.148.71.11 03:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say that she's gay, it says that she's a gay icon. See the difference? Additionally, "gay" is an adjective for both sexes. It's normally used as a noun, e.g. "Many gays and lesbians had a celebration outside a Massachusetts court house today...", when referring to the males in the group. Dismas 09:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spokesperson

Can we add details on her "work" as a spokesperson for various products... --Madchester 23:42, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

That's hot

I wrote an article on that's hot before realizing that someone had already written a rather sub-par ditty on it before, only to have it deleted. I figured I'd post here and ask for consensus; I've given four references in the fairly short article....I think the catch phrase is notable enough to deserve its own article. What do y'all think? Mike H 10:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Joel Spolsky

How to include in the article, the fact, which is relevant to hackers and programmers, the fact that (pictures of) Ms. Hilton were cited by Joel Spolsky, in his seminal article, How Microsoft Lost the API War, as one of the raisons d'etre of the Internet.

Later: I made this comment about 3 months ago. Thanks for answering folks? Was it a silly question?!!

I think the problem is that nobody knows the answer. I for one haven't even read that article, or even heard of it before now. Everyking 18:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Money

The article refers to the net worth of descendents of Barry Hilton, or whatever his name was, as being ~380 million dollars. This seems rather low. I thought it was in the billions, i.e. thousands of millions...

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Also, if you go to Barron Hilton, it has an equal dollar value, so that seems to be right. Apparently, Conrad Hilton didn't leave ANYTHING to his children, but Barron sued and got that amount; it may well be a fraction of the true value Conrad had when he died. --Golbez 01:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It IS rather low, but that's all the money they have.

Bisexuality

I note someone added a Category-Bisexual tag, which someone else reverted with the edit summary "No evidence". Although the initial poster did not provide any, there is evidence to support the assertion:

1. In addition to other public statements and cuddly behavior, her hacked sidekick did contain a topless photo of her in an embrace with MTV V-Jay Eglantina Zingg. [2],[3]
2. Numerous sites have associated her with a gay or bisexual orientation. For example: [4]

Sure, it is not proof positive, but it seems like sufficiently strong evidence to support the category tag. What does everyone else think? Johntex 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She's faking it for media attention.

AJ: surely the point is that people cant and wont be categorized or tagged with labels. Everyone is a bit bisexual on a sliding scale from gay to straight - it depends who you meet, Having Category:Bisexual is stupid - it might as well-be Category:Sexually_liberated.

I'm sure she's bi, she is just whori-enough to be one too. Here is evidence: [5]. Эйрон Кинни 06:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't add that tag - it's speculative. She has never admitted to being bisexual. That is NPOV. ExRat 08:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If she would be faking it for media attention, she would admit it, don't you think? The cell phone photos and a lesbian videotape were stolen. Even if she delibrately released the material for publicity it does not mean she didn't like doing it.

The above claim that everyone is a bit bisexual is scientiffically proven not to be true, at least for men. Read here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm Regardless, female bisexual rousal pattern is not itself sexuality. So if some woman is proven to enjoy sex with women, she is still different from other women who do not do it.

Hacked photograps and a videotape speculative? Please. If that is not enough evidence that she enjoys being sexual with women, than nothing is. I mean how different standatds we have for men and women regarding bisexuality/homosexuality? If a male actors cell phone got hacked and showed photos of him kissing some other man (tongue), would that not be enought evidence for his bisexuality?? Not to mention the videotape.... These different standats could only be justified if women WERE WIDELY KNOWN to be much more prone to bisexuality than men, but even if that is ultimately true most people are still not aware of that.

The only controversial think about labeling her as Bisexual is definition of Bisexuality. i.e. Is a woman who has exclusevly men for life partners, but still occasionally has sex woth women bisexual, or is a bisexual only a woman who also has/had romantic relationship with another woman.

• Yes, the "hacked photographs and videotape" are speculative. What exactly do these images show? Hilton posing topless with another woman and kissing another woman. If you've ever been to a European beach, I can assure you that all those women who are topless and hugging are most likely NOT all bisexual or lesbian. And there's a photograph of her kissing a woman. Big deal. What exactly does that proove? She kissed someone for a photograph, so that's sufficient proof of lesbianism?

Also, you KNOW how to sign your name when you post on these pages, I suggest you please begin doing if you wish to have any significant say-so in articles. ExRat 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your concern about the definition of bisexuality, the issue of life partners and marriage is largely irrelevant. There are many examples of completely homosexual people who married someone of the opposite sex and raised children, often remaining married for long periods and sometimes lifetimes. Who a person forms relationships with and how long the relationships last are a function of culture just as much as they are of sexual orientation. There are a lot of differing definitions that split hairs over exactly what a bisexual is, but to my mind it is someone who is at least minimally attracted to people of both sexes / genders.

Since to my knowledge Paris Hilton hasn't made any public statements to the effect of, "I'm bisexual" or "I'm attracted to both men and women", then we really have no basis for including the bisexuality allegation in the article. Even if a new sex tape comes to light showing her actually having sex with a woman, that itself is not sufficient proof. Only Paris can decide if she's bisexual or not, and until she tells the world, it's not right for Wikipedia to decide it. -Kasreyn 10:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone who has sex with other women and kisses other women, as Paris Hilton does, is bisexual. Get real, people.

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

video?

I fail to see what the ourmedia video just linked adds to the article. --Golbez June 30, 2005 08:47 (UTC)

PLEASE

Don't destroy articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan or hate page. Please respect the articles. I am angry now.--Vitor cunha 5 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Major Copy Edit with NPOV

This article was a real mess and read like a gossip column, I have commented out the sensationalistic paragraphs, as they really don't belong here. redcountess 00:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cover of Vanity Fair October 2005

Paris Hilton made the cover of Vanity Fair topless with strategically placed arms and hands. There is also a feature of Paris Hilton inside.

Fame

Lets face it. Paris Hilton is very very famous. There is more written about her in the newspapers now than there was about Eisenhower immediately after D Day. Every country I go to has her on the front page. So I guess that rates her as a pop icon. There is sure more written about PH than Madonna (I mean the last 20th Century one). The first century Madonna is probably bigger now then the new one! The only woman I can remember them making a fuss over like PH is Grace Kelly, and she did not have the staying power of PH. Paris Hilton is a phenomenon> To think of an equally famous (and devastingly beautiful) woman, you may have to go all the way back to Helen of Troy. Wallie 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that doesn't qualify her as an icon. She is, right now, one of the most famous celebrities in the world, but in order to be an icon, she would have to occupy a position in society which she currently does not. I fail to see how she is a pop icon any more than Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsey Lohan, or any other of a number of attractive young women who become very high profile for a couple of years. She has not ascended to the same status as Marylin Monroe, James Dean etc.--Victim Of Fate 17:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And uh, I think the Blessed Virgin always *was* 'bigger' than the cone-boobed whore, regardless of what the media pay attention to.

Lack of criticism

To be really, really honest and forthright, this article really needs a criticism section. It would have to based on her "Dumb blonde" attitude and look, being a celebrity simply because she has money from her parents, the sex tape, role model (A counter-criticism would be great also on this) and her very thin body.

PH's inherited money is not important. She is a celebrity, because people like her. She may have a 'dumb blond look' to some, but is actually highly intelligent, and beautiful with it, an extremely rare combination. Wallie 19:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wallie, please stop putting your obsession with Paris in the article. You may think she's a beauty for the ages, a misunderstood humble woman, but at best, that's original research. --Golbez 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Golbez, you and others are very much anti Paris. This whole article is so POV, that Paris could have grounds for a libel suit. Things are written in such a damning light. I would hate anyone to say some of these things about my daughter. Both pros and cons must be discussed. The article is pretty much con, and I was adding a few pros. But you just want to delete whatever I put down. And I guess you have the right. By the way, I thought that ALL research was supposed to be original. Otherwise it is copyrite. Wallie 20:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR so you know what "original research" means. Also read WP:NPOV. And you know nothing of me, I don't hate Paris. If you would hate people saying them about your daughter, perhaps you should raise your daughter not to be a vacuous slut. --Golbez 22:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I know enough about you to know that you cynically sneak around the rules of Wikipedia. I really get sick of people like you deleting everything that they disagree with, as you know the political rules of Wikipedia. Many of you obviously hunt in packs, say whatever you want too, delete others work saying it is vanadalsm, and worst of all go about congratualting each other, and making all sorts of "awards" all for doing absolutely nothing. If I used the same sort of insulting remarks that you did, you and your pals would have me banned very quickly. Wallie 16:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if you spent more time reading the rules and finding a better way to edit the article, and less time trying to insult me, you might end up with a better article. What insulting remark, that it's an obsession? --Golbez 18:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a typical tactic on your part. You say that I can edit an article a better way, but you will still delete it anyway. I am not insulting you, just defending myself from a vicious attack. You insulted my daughter, and at the same time Paris Hilton in your remarks. You think that because you don't like what I say, you can simply wipe me out, just because you know the rules better than me. I cannot edit any more, as you will pull the three revert law, and have me banned from Wikipedia. The only way I can go now is to defend myself. THAT IS MY RIGHT AND I WILL DO IT! Wallie 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I did no such thing as insult your daughter, unless she IS a vacuous slut. Yawn. --Golbez 20:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, you started this, Golbez. You have just repeated your outrageous remark. Naturally you will come in for rounds of applause from your fellow admins. I think that it really stinks that you have banned me, just because you know the rules. I think you admins have far too much power and abuse it. Wallie 20:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Need some nails for your cross? I doubt I started it, but I'm ending it. --Golbez 21:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

>>You started it when you kept deleting anything I said. You are not ending it, as you have insulted me yet again. As I say, you have now effectively banned me, as you have reverted me three times, and that means that I can't edit anything, or you will immediately dismiss me from this site. Wallie 07:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Wallie, if I may offer some unsolicited advice, you may want to see WP:CITE. If you can find a reputable media source that calls Paris humble, we might be able to work that quote into the article. Also, since you want to include mention of her charitable work, why not find some sources about what causes she has donated to, and how much? It might be enough to justify a good section. What we can't do, however, is just insert our opinions into the article. Johntex\^talk 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

So you agree with what Golbez said. He called my Paris, and my daughter a ..... (you can read it above). I suppose this is NPOV? I note that you are no advice for him. And why should I have references about Paris being humble. Other people have similar things said about them without such references in Wikipedia. This is not POV in their case. Why is there a special case for Miss Hilton? I was trying to be NPOV, and got the wording from another celebrity, as this was considered NPOV, and it did not have a reference. There are plenty of negative things said about Paris without reference. Is this not POV too? As I have said, one rule for admins like Golbez, another for plebs like me. Wallie 07:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to read more carefully. Golbez did not call your daughter anything. You said "I would hate anyone to say some of these things about my daughter." He replied " If you would hate people saying them about your daughter, perhaps you should raise your daughter not to be a vacuous slut." I interpret his comment to mean that he thinks Paris is a vacuous slut, and that if you are worried about people saying the same thing about your daughter, then you should ensure your daughter does not turn out like Paris. He clearly uses the phrase, "If you would..." He is talking about the future, and he is saying noting about what your daughter is like today." Anyway, his assertion that she is a slut has no more place in the article than your opinion that she is humble. Our opinions don't belong in the article. Find a notable source and we can work it into the article. Johntex\^talk 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In defense of the article here, how many times on your local news, legitamite news sources, or on the national TV gossip shows about incidents such as the Sex Tape, numerous sexual partners, her attitude, and her lifestyle? I hear about it almost every day!

Also, it was mentioned above, but read the WP:NOR article, in reply to Golbez.

I cannot believe what I am hearing here. Is PH the only one who has numerous sex partners? I find these remarks so hypocritical. Similar remarks were made about Princess Diana by "TV gossip shows". And now she is a saint in some peoples' eye. Does PH have to die before someone will say anything positive about her?

This whole article seems to have been written by people who have it in for PH, and is by definition POV. Also, the moment I try to redress the balance, Golbez will immediately reverse what I have said.

Lastly, your comment regarding "NOR"... the is plenty of this with regards to the negative comments about PH. Golbez came up with this reason later, but did not mention why he was deleting my edits earlier. He just did it. Wallie 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, Paris Hilton's negatives far outnumber the positives. Golbez (or whoever it was) noted in his comments that the added content was considered to be original research and, well, it isn't allowed on Wikipedia according to the rules. I'm sure that if you cite sources, the powers that be might allow it to remain.

To finish this off, out of my humble opinion, Paris Hilton is one of the many things that is wrong with this world.

Wallie, don't be such a victim. No one was insulting your daughter, and the hypothetical caveat that the way to avoid people saying things about her is for her not to deserve it is the way real people talk. You can start a Paris Hilton fan club if you want to (though good luck finding members if it's not pornographic) but don't do it on Wikipedia.

This says it all

I just tried to go to "View this article" from the talk page and got this message in my browser: "The document contained no data." Sums her up very well. Her Pegship 20:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kabbalah?

If she really does follow Kabbalah (see categories), please elucidate within the article, or at least cite a source. Thanks. Her Pegship 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

She doesn't follow it. She did got to a few classes after her sex tape surfaced but that's it. She was also put under the Jewish americans category. She isn't jewish, her family celebrates Christmas. You can see Christmas Cards with the Hilton Family on them in Paris' book. I believe she's Catholic. Her grandfather Conrad was a Catholic.

There was a news snippet on IMDb yesterday about her, and apparently she is a Kabbalah follower [6] but it is yet to be seen how serious she is about it.

"People like Paris Hilton come into a centre and buy a book or a band and that's it for them." - Madonna. That doesn't mean that she follows it. She used to go to classes and she did wear the red bracelet but that's all. She no longer wears the bracelet or studies it. She isn't a follower so putting her under that category is ridiculous.

Even if she was raised Catholic, there is no possible way you could call her one now. She obviously worships only herself. As for Kabbalah, is it worth adding a bit more to the article about how she participates in name only?

Little if nothing else is needed to qualify yourself as a practitioner of any given religion other than saying you are one.--Paraphelion 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Celebutante

Wallie removed the phrase about Hilton frequently being called a celebutante, ie "famous for being famous" as being unsourced and POV. I partially agree. Clearly, the term is in use. Googling on "Paris Hilton" + celebutante returns more than 18,000 hits. Some of them are notable sources. Therefore, I restored the word celebutante and provided a notable source for its use. However, it is not clear to me how this equates to being "famous for being famous", so I left that part out. Also, I'm not sure this fact belongs in the intro. We may want to find a better place in the article. I've left it in the intro for now simply because the intro is too short already and I don't want to make it shorter. Johntex\^talk 22:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, "frequently" could be seen as a weasel word that requires us to make a judgement about what qualifies as "frequent" compared to "sometimes" or "seldom" or "almost all the time". I don't think the word adds much so I dropped it. Johntex\^talk 22:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate when people say "famous for being famous," because it makes no sense. She's famous for being rich, famous for being a party girl, famous for being a woman of ill repute, and famous because of her grandfather. But she's not "famous for being famous."

This Article

After I get through with the POV and NOR that you mentioned, Golbez, there won't be much left of this article. Most of it is POV (negative) and not referenced, Golbez! Wallie 16:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I ceased communicating with you. You still obsess over me, as evidenced as using my name twice in two sentences. Please stop. --Golbez 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wallie's deletions

Wallie deleted a couple things as being POV and unreliably sourced. I agree that gossip columns aren't reliable in the sense of being factually accurate, but they are reliable sources for knowing what's being gossiped about. Her sexual oritentation isn't being expressed as a known fact, it's being talked about as a rumor. So, I hope this stuff doesn't get deleted again without there being some kind of consensus for its removal. Friday (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with using gossip columns as a reliable source is that it is simply that, gossip. The worst part about this whole article is its extreme negativity. I can remember this sentiment being around in the newspapers just before Princess Diana died. It was amazing how that things suddenly changed immediately afterwards. It was encouraging to see that Encyclopedias at the time did not fall into this trap, and follow the newspapers. I feel sure that if Wikipedia was around at the time, it would be full of negative comments about Diana, just before she died, as is this one about Paris Hilton.

I can only imagine that the article is so negative, as people are actually jealous of Paris Hilton. After all, she does appear to have a lot of fans, is also very successful at making money, and appears to have a great lifestyle. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encylopedia, and written as such. I would be very surprised to see an article written in this way appear in a reputable encyclopedia, say the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Generally, the articles are good in Wikipedia, but this one is letting the side down. Wallie 13:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to remove things for being unsourced, I'm all for that. (Of course, if finding a source is reasonably doable, that should usually be done instead of outright removal). It's not our job to be positive or negative about Hilton - our sources do that for us, and we just document what those sources said. Personally, I don't see that this article is particularly biased. Can you quote specific parts of it where you feel bias is a problem? Friday (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Animal welfare?

Is this category some kind of attack or other silliness? Friday (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there's no mention of anything animal welfare related in the article, I've removed this for now. If it was supposed to be there, I won't be remotely offended if anyone puts it back, but there should be something in the article that makes it clear how it's relevant. Friday (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's there now, plus a nice reliable reference. And I put back the catgory. Wallie 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost any celebrity will have some kind of connection to various causes. What's in the article now is about her signing one protest letter and wearing a sweatshirt. To me, this doesn't look like enough to classify her as an animal welfare activist, if that's what the category is meant to imply. Would anyone researching animal welfare care about Paris Hilton? If the answer is likely no, I'd say the category should go away. Friday (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Friday. Methinks you may be somewhat against this lady. Maybe a touch POV??? You seem to readily accept that she is a porn star, which is part of the overview... Wallie 16:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Porn star" should probably be taken out of the intro (altho the section about her infamous video should remain.) I'm also not sure she should be described as singer. I was thinking "actress" was questionable too, altho she does have several movies in her filmography. I've removed "porn star" for now. Friday (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will also remove the animal welfare category. I agree that she is probably a lightweight candidate in this area to date. Scottish Americans has gone too, as she doesn't have a Scots accent. Wallie 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Car crash fails to eliminate the Porn Barbie.

She was in a car crash yesterday. They tried to flee papa razzi in their luxury Bentley, driving with their bomber jacket over their heads to avoid photos and so hit a gravel truck. The whole thing was captured on video and is circulating all over the Internet. They were all badly drunk and drove away from the scene, which made the police detain them. She was not hurt at all, especially her head was well protected since she has an air bag inside her skull instead of a brain ... aka airhead bimbo.

Here is the video: http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1426945

Interesting. The paparazzi pestered Princess Diana too. I will never forgive them. They killed her. POV? Yes definitely. However, there are plenty that think the way I do. Wallie 16:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason for this kind of stuff on the talk page, unless it's relevant to the article. Calling her the "porn barbie" here is not helpful. Friday (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Paris Playboy Cover

This article is conflicting. In one section it reads "In the March 2005 issue of Playboy, she was named the "Sex Star of the Year" in their list of the 25 Sexiest Celebrities. Someone appearing to be her was on the cover of the issue, but she did not pose for it; she says she does not know where Playboy got that picture". However, the caption of the Playboy cover says that it is in fact Hilton. This needs to be fixed.

You're welcome to. --Golbez 03:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Images on the article

There ave been numerous images given to this artcle, so well done. But I would like to ask why when the main image (the up-most picture, at the opening paragraph) is constantly removed when another is added? There is the one in the yellow tracksuit top, then there is the one (current) in which she is dressed in a pink top. So why are they constantly being removed and added then finally removed again? --Kilo-Lima 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia: Paris Hilton's IQ

• Her general IQ is 83.

Can we have some sources for that? 83 is terribly low and would categorise as definate mental retardation. She seems to show no signs of such a level of retardation, therefore I hold that figure with a fair bit of skepticism. I have removed the statement in the meantime. Jachin 03:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I notice, however, that the statement is now back. I believe it should be removed again because it has no citation. Does anyone disagree? --Takeel 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Address Book

I have removed this due to the fact that it is gossip. Is this really the stuff we want to see in an Encyclopedia? Wallie 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

References....

Where are they? This article is full of uncited text. There are all sorts of "facts" documented, but nothing to back it up. We should either get the references or start removing the offending text. Wallie 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I just had text that I had put up for being copyvio, please don't do that again. All I was doing was quoting from an article that the person who reverted me had put up himself. I just want to explain to everyone out there that this particular person has some personal agenda, which has me confused. I have also thought that this article was heavily weighted against Paris Hilton. It is clear that quite a few people out there obviously hate her, and this is clouding their judgement. I believe that some positive comments are OK as well. But if any positive remarks are made, a certain person comes up with a creative excuse to remove them. Wallie 14:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Get over yourself; quotes are of course allowed to be put verbatim, but you also pasted the context verbatim as well. You may also notice that the quote WASN'T REMOVED. So your martyrdom is not only misplaced, but wholly irrelevant. --Golbez 23:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)