Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Going to jail?

I read from a tabloid that she did some devious deed and might be going to jail. Really/Why? Reliable source: http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Celebrities/0,9294,2-1225-2108_2076788,00.html -Lapinmies 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You can read the news article, why are you asking things here --Golbez 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum or a news article, just do a google search if you care! --84.153.31.8 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the damn petition? No link? Where is the citition for the "petition"?

do a search on www.ipetitions.com 81.178.232.81 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my reverts

In light of the small edit war going on over this edit which I have previously reverted, here is my reasoning for why I did so (copied from my response to Ledenierhomme on my talk page). The edit consists of the following:

1. An assertion that Hilton is "a naturally brown eyed brunette" using photographs here as a source. This website does not have any claim to credibility. There is no verification that (1) the photos are in fact of Paris Hilton, and (2) the earlier photo depicts her natural appearance. Furthermore, whether this is even notable is open to debate, which is another reason Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources. If a reliable one has done so, it probably can go in the article.

   Its clearly a photo of Hilton. Just because you say the site isn't credible, is irrelevant. You are going to say that about any source of any fact you consider negative. Its obviously notable because she encourages young women to be superficial and mutilate themselves with plastic surgery. Annoyed with fanboys 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

2. An assertion that Hilton uses the terms "chink", "niggers", and "faggot" on the videos. This is first problematic because no source is provided; an Internet video is unacceptable because there is no verification that it is genuine. On a different level, the information is poorly presented without context (who was she addressing?) or explanation of its implications (has anyone notable commented on it? Has Paris made a comment?). You could write that same sentence for a comedian's act, but of course would not unless it was commented on by an outside source providing more information on why it is notable.

   Its not an assertion. Its a fact that she did these things. Its on video for the entire world to see and its been confirmed by every major news network at this point, including CNN. Annoyed with fanboys 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

3. An assertion that the racial slurs give "credence to earlier rumors in the gossip press regarding Hilton being racist towards African-Americans". This is a personal interpretation finding a connection between two separate events, not a straightforward logical deduction. Same with the comment that the herpes prescription "appears to confirm the truthfulness...that she suffers from the sexually-transmitted disease"
4. A partial list of items found in the locker. This again must be attributed to a reliable source.

I'm all for appropriate detail and don't care whether the information is positive or negative, but it must be well-backed by outside sources. I have actually spent a good deal of time trying to expand on the ParisExposed.com incident. The only sources I could find referring to racial/homophobic slurs were the New York Post and The Daily Telegraph (Australia)—hardly reliable sources—and the treatment was too weak for inclusion here (e.g., NY Post simply says she's seen "hitting the dance floor with sister Nicky and boldly declaring, "We're like two n-----s."). -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, any source of what you deem brings Hilton to an unfavorable light you call unreliable. The sources are just as good as most others and you are being patently conniving about the issue. Annoyed with fanboys 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, CNN (as of 5-09-07) and Paris Hilton herself have confirmed that she did say the racial and homophobic slurs. The periodicals you mentioned aren't lacking in credibility just because a fan of Paris would have us believe so.Majestic Lizard Returns 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton was a brunette with brown hair in high school and she has had plastic surgery. Recently she want from an A cup to nearly a D cup for crying out loud. It is notable because she is a role model for young women.Majestic Lizard Returns 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Refutation of Rationale Regarding Reverts

Its all complete POV nonsense. The tape of her racial slurs were on CNN. Its reality, get over it. The statement by the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law is a fact. Get over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annoyed with fanboys (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

people constantly deleting any negative information

There seems to be a small but dedicated coterie monitoring this page in order to ensure that no negative information, or at least as little as possible, is permitted to stay on this page. Countless other celebrities' pages have mention of alleged racism, homophobia, quirks, medical conditions, etc - but it seems impossible for anything like this to stay on the Paris Hilton webpage for longer than a couple of hours. Below is a "discussion" I had with one of these fanboys (and by "discussion", I mean me trying to reason with an automaton who labels every source - whether the largest newspaper in Sydney, or primary source footage itself - unreliable).

I realize you, and others, are for some reason doing their best to keep negative information off the Paris Hilton page - but photographs and video are about as conclusive evidence as you can get, short of her admitting as much herself to Barbara Walters. It doesn't matter whether the information comes from Youtube.com or Awfulplasticsurgery.com, ANYONE can view the images/video first-hand, so there is no question of the reliability of the source, the sources are direct, they are PRIMARY SOURCES.

furthermore, any "inferences" made do not require an appeal to a "reliable source", since they are mere logical deductions. A) Gossip press says Hilton is racist against African-Americans; B) Footage exists of her using ethnic slurs. There is no "original research" or "inference" there.

and why are you using the inclusive "we"? are you among a select few that dictate wikipedia policy? no? i thought not.

I'm providing facts, you're deleting them. I can't for the life of me fathom why...

The ParisExposed.com website is one of the most significant things ever to happen to her career, and is all over network news stations around the world - yet you, and a group of editors who appear to be Paris Hilton "fans", don't wish Wikipedia to make anything other than the most off-hand, dismissive reference to it, while detailing 37KB of positive or neutral information.... Ledenierhomme 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You still seem unfamiliar with WP:ATT. Secondary sources are nearly always preferred over primary ones. Your most recent edit consists of the following:

1. An assertion that Hilton is "a naturally brown eyed brunette" using photographs here as a source. This website does not have any claim to credibility. There is no verification that (1) the photos are in fact of Paris Hilton, and (2) the earlier photo depicts her natural appearance. Furthermore, whether this is even notable is open to debate, which is another reason Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources. If a reliable one has done so, it probably can go in the article.

   Yeah right. You are going to say that about any source of anything you deem negative. Annoyed with fanboys 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

2. An assertion that Hilton uses the terms "chink", "niggers", and "faggot" on the videos. This is first problematic because no source is provided; an Internet video is unacceptable because there is no verification that it is genuine. On a different level, the information is poorly presented without context (who was she addressing?) or explanation of its implications (has anyone notable commented on it? Has Paris made a comment?). You could write that same sentence for a comedian's act, but of course would not unless it was commented on by an outside source providing more information on why it is notable.

   I call Bull*hit. Its been on CNN and its been confirmed to be her. The information was not poorly presented, nor was the context. She was at an exclusive party spouting racial and homophobic slurs. Stop trying to twist it into something innocent. Annoyed with fanboys 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

3. An assertion that the racial slurs give "credence to earlier rumors in the gossip press regarding Hilton being racist towards African-Americans". This is a personal interpretation finding a connection between two separate events, not a straightforward logical deduction. Same with the comment that the herpes prescription "appears to confirm the truthfulness...that she suffers from the sexually-transmitted disease"

   Where did that come from? Who is speculating that she has herpes? Yeah, that would be inappropriate. Calling Hilton a racist is POV. We don't even call Hitler a racist on Wikipedia. We only state that he is a proponent of "racist ideology". Point is you seem to be refuting a straw-man with the herpes and racism nonsense. Annoyed with fanboys 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

4. A partial list of items found in the locker. This again must be attributed to a reliable source.

I'm all for appropriate detail and don't care whether the information is positive or negative, but it must be well-backed by outside sources. I have actually spent a good deal of time trying to expand on the ParisExposed.com incident. The only sources I could find referring to racial/homophobic slurs were the New York Post and The Daily Telegraph (Australia)—hardly reliable sources—and the treatment was too weak for inclusion here (e.g., NY Post simply says she's seen "hitting the dance floor with sister Nicky and boldly declaring, "We're like two n-----s."). -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have proven that any source of anything you consider to be unfavorable to Hilton is not reliable in your point of view. Your bias is quite obvious to anyone reading this discussion. You aren't fooling anyone. I also have a bias, but I don't include it in my contributions to an article. Annoyed with fanboys 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, the CNN coverage is now in the article, but at the time this discussion took place, no one had added it to the article or mentioned it in the talk page. The only sources known at the time were primary sources or unreliable ones. Your retroactive comments are missing the point of this discussion, and I'm reluctant to respond to them, but for the sake of my own honor: please note that I did the research and volunteered that I found the Post and Daily Telegraph coverage and in the past I've added sources that had arguably negative coverage (e.g., [1]). -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight. It's okay to reference YouTube when it's something positive ("Paris Hilton has her own channel in YouTube which is currently the #34 most subscribed channel of all time on the service, with over 10,000 subscriptions and 2,000,000 views.") but not negative (her saying "niggers")... the context is clear by the way, and you know it. Same goes for The Daily Telegraph (Australia) in reference 4.

No, those are decent sources. Ignore this nonsense. Annoyed with fanboys 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, TMZ.com, TheBosh.com, Filmbug.com, E! Online, dailycal, and other websites of questionable credibility are referenced throughout with positive information - whereas when it comes to negative information, New York Post and Sydney's largest newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, are, according to your good self, "hardly reliable sources".

No, those are decent sources. Ignore this nonsense. Annoyed with fanboys 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite your quite humorous attempts to appear devoted to academic rigour and source objectivity, it's clear your will go to any length to keep negative information off this page, no matter how ridiculous and hypocritical you look. Whatever. I've got more important things to do with my time, like marking about 50 essays before this weekend. I hope you get to meet Ms Hilton one day, I'm sure she'll go for your type............ HA! Ledenierhomme 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent. Annoyed with fanboys 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on what it's being used to source. The information about the YouTube channel is directly from YouTube's software - not from content posted there. This is information that is credible.

And yes, the quality of sources needs to be higher for negative information than for positive. Libel law and our policy on biographies of living persons demands it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh now someone is saying Paris Hilton is going to sue wikipedia for libel if it has unfavorable facts about her in the article? Please. You think Paris gives a da*mn about this site? The quality of sources issue has been greatly and laughably distorted in this discussion. It is quite obvious that anything the fans deem as negative will be considered poorly sourced no matter what it is. Even if it is CNN. Annoyed with fanboys 15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The likeliness of someone suing Wikipedia is not to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not to post possibly libelous material on them. We don't do it no matter who they are, even if it's someone you don't like. Please stop bolding all of your comments. --Golbez 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you just totally twisted around what I said. I basically said it was ridiculous to presume that anyone was going to sue anyone over anything on this page which is true, just because its negative. I never advocated adding libelous material, ever. Annoyed with fanboys 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) isn't a reliable enough source for Wikipedia? please... POV tag added Ledenierhomme 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The YouTube channel was well reported on by outside sources. YouTube partnered with Paris Hilton for the launch of their new "brand channels" feature. See for example [2] and [3]. That is information attributable to reliable sources. It is not in the article yet, but it should be. As you've identified above, there are several problems with this article, particularly with its reliance on less than ideal sources, but as I mentioned before, Wikipedia is especially careful with poorly sourced negative information for biographies of living people.

Maybe I've underestimated the The Daily Telegraph (I had a quick look at their article and it looked like a tabloid), but even if it's reliable, the treatment is just as weak as the NY Post (the entire coverage is: "We're like two niggers," Paris declared as she danced with her sister Nicky). It's unencyclopedic gossip. The Daily Telegraph reference you mention above is only there to corroborate that she dropped out of high school: arguably negative information, but not controversial.

Your accusations about me are irrelevant and unhelpful. Let's keep this WP:CIVIL and comment on the article instead of each other. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, no one is attacking you. You are just being shown as the biased fan you really are. Annoyed with fanboys 15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing, you calling other people biased. --Golbez 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that I don't allow my bias to contaminate the articles I contribute to. If you find that funny, its your problem. Annoyed with fanboys 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How is quoting the phrase "We're like two niggers," weak? Do you expect her to declare her Mein Kampf? Under what circumstances does that not constitute a remark of racial vilification? Particularly when it is coupled with the "chinks" and "Jappy" remarks that the Telegraph doesn't mention. "Unencyclopedic [sic] gossip"???? Virtually the entire article is "Unencyclopedic [sic] gossip". That's the price you pay for having a freely-editable internet encyclopedia: the Paris Hilton page is the same size as the article on Portugal. How can you complain about some gossipy information (she's naturally brown-eyed and brunette) and not others (New York Style saying she was the leading "It Girl")? Martin Sheen's page mentions his drinking problems early in his career; Brad Pitt's page has direct quotations with no citations - Angelina Jolie is made to look like a hypocritical marriage-breaker; and I'm sure I could find countless other examples. CLEARLY, this is a case of selective editing. Ledenierhomme 02:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's weak coverage because we don't have enough information to give a fair, complete treatment of the incident. All we can do now is state: she says, "we're like two niggers" on the dance floor. If some notable group commented on it, or Paris Hilton gave a statement, it can probably go in the article. But the trivial coverage from the Post and Telegraph is all I have found thus far.

The "Leading It Girl" is part of a larger sentence that helps establish when she started to become notable in the media. And it's no surprise that there are faults in other articles; it doesn't mean we have to make the same ones here. SpuriousQ (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So why are you so eager to defend Hilton and not Jolie?

Sorry, I don't find use of the word "nigger" trivial. You obviously do. Meanwhile, let us all wait for comprehensive coverage of this incident in New York Times, the Guardian, BBC, and CNN - I'm sure it's high on their agenda. What a farce this all is. Ledenierhomme 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I stated that the coverage of the incident I found was too trivial for inclusion here, not that using a racial slur is somehow appropriate. You originally made an edit that was quite obviously against Wikipedia's policies; I reverted and explained why. It's your unfounded speculation that I did so as part of a mission to prevent any negative information from appearing here. I happen to think we are making progress here: the herpes allegation is now well-sourced and relevant because it was part of a testimony in a legal case involving Hilton. Your most recent edits have much better attribution than before—apparently there has been more extensive coverage in the media. But I don't feel your personal comments about me are constructive. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The source of my initial edit already mentioned the information came from the court transcript. And yes, we're making progress, damn right - I've forced the issue, and I'm being proven correct. All the "inferences" (*chuckle*) I made are being found to have been echoed/corroborated by "inferences" made in The Guardian and on CNN. Feel the pain. Ledenierhomme 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your initial edit did not cite a reliable source about the testimony. We have to do better than thesuperficial.com for such a statement, per WP:BLP. I'm not feeling any pain; I'm happy we're adding well-sourced information. But, again, this confrontational attitude isn't helping anyone. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're making the incorrect assumption that this is a battle between anti-Paris and pro-Paris editors. It's not. It's about making sure that Wikipedia articles are founded on solid sources, not unreliable ones, and about not permitting editors' original research or opinions. Personally, I loathe Paris Hilton - but I think it's important that Wikipedia hold up high standards even for people I detest. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think its merely fans. I think someone is investing time professionally to keep that information off of a popular site. That is my opinion. I'm entitled to it.Majestic Lizard Returns 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SpuriousQ is an excellent name for this one, because that is what his arguments are. Nigger is not a trivial word. Rich white people who go around saying "nigger" and "faggot" at exclusive dance clubs ARE racists. Its their way of saying that they don't have to obey the norms of society everyone else has to because they are rich. And it has been covered on CNN and on NBC now. The video WAS of Paris. So SpuriousQ is just blowing smoke.Annoyed with fanboys 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Annoyed, this discussion is about two months old, and rough consensus has since been reached with a mention of the CNN coverage. If you want to discuss something about the current article, you should bring it up in a new thread. However, please keep WP:CIVIL in mind, because your comments are a bit combative. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP needs to be kept in mind

I would like to remind all editors of WP:BLP. The policies regarding 'Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material' state that it should be removed immediately. If a single source only reports on something and there is no real analysis of the situation then it should not be included. We should always edit articles about living people with a very clear mind and lean towards leaving things out unless they are very well sourced.

Try not to think people are 'pro' and 'anti' a subject, you should assume good faith and realise that people are trying to improve this site whilst protecting the lives of those we are analysing.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I call bull*hit. Any source you don't agree with you are going to say is poor and any you do agree with you are going to say is well-sourced. In fact, several positive statements in the article have the same sources that the negative ones do. Yet the positive ones remain and the negative ones get cut. POV. Very POV. Annoyed with fanboys 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Porn Star in lead text

No way man. First of all, it doesn't quite fit the WP definition, which says someone who appears in pornographic movies. Last time I checked, Paris was only in one licensed pornographic movie. And in any case, the fact that she decided to later license it and make a buck hardly qualifies her as a porn star. In the interest of WP:BLP, I think that text needs to be removed ASAP! I'm going to remove it now. --Jaysweet 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do remove it. I have removed that text several times before. Paris Hilton is not a full-time, or even a part-time porn star. Acalamari 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But the lead needs to be rewritten altogether. I don't think she's mostly known as a singer, actress, and model as the current version suggests. "Porn star" is grossly misleading, but this is also a bit for someone reading about her for the first time. I've prepared a version that I'm about to commit, would welcome any feedback. I've done away with the "celebutante" description as I proposed above, and removed the Biography Channel reference because it wasn't sourcing anything in that sentence. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a little long for an intro, but not bad. Seems like an improvement to me. It definitely read more like a summary of who Paris Hilton is. --Jaysweet

Thanks Jaysweet. Not disputing your point, but I actually shortened the intro from what it was before... -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, heh, whoops. Well then definitely it is a huge improvement then! Good work! :) --Jaysweet 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that pornstar is hardly an accurate term to describe her, I strongly believe celebutante is a solid term to use. I'll change it later. --Conrad Kilroy 14:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, celebutante is now a pretty good and well-sourced article. I would support it in the lead text now; at the time I thought it was a non-notable and vague neologism. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does qualify. She sold a pornographic movie that she starred in. Hence, porno-star. Being a porno-star is not a full-time or part-time job like working at Burger King or Smith Barney. Either someone does porn or they don't; Paris did. Annoyed with fanboys 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just cooking food does not make you a Chef. Similarly, appearing in a private sex tape—regardless of its later becoming public—does not make one a Porn Star. Notably in this case she was not paid to appear on the tape, she was paid compensation—after the fact—for its public release. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you have a famous cooking show and you cook on it in front of millions of people, you would be a sort of amateur chef. What Paris did is what is known as Amateur Porn, especially considering that in her short career as such she made more money than most Porn Stars do in their entire careers. Which would make her an Amateur Porn Star. Also, Paris' video was leaked exactly at the same time of her "The Simple Life" program. The result was that she raked in a ton of dough. Draw you own conclusions about the nature of the "leak". In any case, as soon as she sought to draw profit from the video itself rather than simply exploit the attention it brought her other projects, she became an amateur porn star. Annoyed with fanboys 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I don't think the the introduction of a trivia section is a very good idea; usually such sections are not encouraged. Trivia sections are common points of criticism in peer reviews or good/featured article nominations. Everything worth mentioning such be worked into the main text, and not the other way around - as it happened here - cut out of the text to be put in a new created bulletin list. On the same note, one line sections (Charity Work, Allegations of Racism, Antisemitism, Homophobia) are rather pointless as well; they either need to be expanded or merged with another section. Sloan21 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the creation of a trivia section was an attempt to reduce the text. Please, review the article's edit history. The section, formerly titled "Media Spotlight" was much longer. I'll agree, however, that much of this information is somewhat useless. This is a somewhat contentious article, and I didn't want to offend other editors by deleting too much information in one fell swoop. My hope was that in highlighting the "trivial" nature of some of this material, much it might gradually be eliminated. Cleo123 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Fight

Don't you think that as her fight with Nicole Richie dominated some of the tabloids for many weeks, it deservs a proper section or to be merged in to the main section. It is somthing she will always be known for. It should get more than just a trivia bullet.-- Hiltonhampton 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity spokesperson

Could somone please give an example of this or a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiltonhampton (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Guess. [4] Cleo123 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Paris Exposed

I actually have all the clips on my hard drive, and could send them to you if you like. But here's a run down of the important facts. Paris does use the term "nigger or niggers" twice. But she doesn't direct the term at black people. The first time she uses it is while she and her sister are dancing. She says, "we're like two niggers". Paris appears wasted, and what exactly she means by this cryptic comment is totally unclear. I would note however, that the song playing in the background is "Hypnotize" by Notorious B.I.G, and the lyrics to that song are riddled with "niggers" doing this and "niggers" doing that. Later, while observing a shriveled up man who just got out of the pool, Paris says, "he looks like my ball sack after I fucked like 10 niggers". Again, the meaning of this is unclear, and the fact that heavy drinking and drug use have seem to be going on probably doesn't help the situation. Clearly Paris does not have a ball sack, nor is he a man. One could guess that she is playing on the fact that blacks are 5 times more likely to carry an STD than whites, and that she is implying the man looks like a ball sack that has been struck with some sort of nasty disease, but again, this would just be a guess.

The term "JAP" is used in a song Paris makes up sung to the tune of Sister Sledge's "We are Family". It is important to note that this song appears directed not at Jews in general, but one specific Jew named Ashley Star who Paris seems to have some sort of beef with. The lyrics go:

I am Ashley Star. I'm a little Jew-y JAP

I am Ashley Star I'm a fat ugly Jewish Bitch

I like Prada Products.....(this line sends Nicky into hysterics and she falls into Paris laughing and effectively ends the song.

The manner in which "chink" is used probably warrants some sort of edit on the main page to differentiate it from the other slurs. Paris doesn't actually call anyone a "chink". The camera pans to Paris' then boyfriend Jason Shaw talking to an Asian man in the distance. Paris remarks, "he always finds the biggest "herbs" (pronounced HER-bs, not ER-bs) to talk to". Then an off camera friend says, "Awww. Let him talk to the chink." Paris repeats the words "the chink" in a manner which indicates that, she finds her friend's choice of words humorous. So to suggest that she "uses" the word "chink" is highly deceptive. I've "used" the words "nigger", "JAP", and "chink" just now, but certainly not in the way most people think when they here somebody, "used the word chink".

Paris calls Nicky's future husband a "faggot", but it strains credulity to interpret it as a homophobic slur given the way it is uttered and the person to whom it is directed.Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

With some sort of modification regarding the "chink" term, I think the current status of that section is fine, but the title is not. There was some controversy with Paris' use of certain words, but to label it "racist" or "homophobic" crosses the line from objectivity to subjectivity. There is no solid evidence to suggest Paris is racist or homophobic. An cursory examination of her friends in fact reveals a disproportionately high number of Jews and Homosexuals, and two of her past three BFF's have been minorities. She's dated Jews in the past as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bogan444 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, using terms alone does not mean one is anything-ist. --Golbez 03:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot "read" her as a racist through her racist comments, it is essential for the article to mention the fact that she has been accused of being racist by Rosie and others as a result of those comments. The point of view that her comments indicate she is racist MUST be included. Therefore, I think that the title should say "Allegations of racism" insofar as the videos are only notable insofar as there was a reaction against her perceived racism by the public and the media.--Agnaramasi 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick one if you must, but to load the header with all the isms you can think of is going overboard. --Golbez 18:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I too, have seen the footage in question, and contrary to the impression "Bogan444" is trying to create, her words and her attitude are very suspect, to say the least. When talking about one African-American woman, she refers to her as a "poor bitch... she's probably from Compton". I find the manner in which she uses the slur "Chink" highly offensive - she finds the it, and the person, humorous. Golbez, if you think there are too many "isms" in the heading/sub-heading, then perhaps that is an issue you should take up with Paris Hilton and her friends, and she manages to cover all areas in a single night out (I shudder to think what we'd hear were we to have footage of the many hundreds of nights out she has had). A heading needs to be descriptive. Maybe you could change it to "Allegations of Class, Race, and Religious prejudice", but that sounds even more convoluted. Ledenierhomme 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The subsection consists of two sentences. Just like the content about DUI troubles or engagements in that section, this doesn't warrant a heading. I feel the content would be most appropriate in chronological order, immediately after the ParisExposed.com paragraph. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, and restored the edit as SpuriousQ suggested and which I had made previously but had been reverted by Ledenierhomme. We are not saying that the allegations are not important; they are. What we are saying is that two sentences is just not worthy of an entire section in any article. I would suggest that if you think these allegations are notable enough for an entire section, prove it by adding verifiable references to public figures or anti-racism organizations who have criticized her in the media.--Agnaramasi 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme, Paris doesn't call anybody a "chick". An girl off camera does that. People who haven't viewed the tape carefully, or more likely, just want to slur Paris at any opportunity, have made the claim, but it clearly isn't true. Paris calls the kid a "Herb". The person sitting next to her then refers to the guy as a "chink". I think it is extremely telling that though Paris uses ethinc slurs that evening, not once is one of her ethnic slurs actually directed at a minority. As far as the fact that people have called her a racist, maybe that's true, but almost every famous personality has been refered to as a "racist" at one point or another. Just the nature of the world we live in. Hardly warrants a subsection. I think the question is whether or not the claims of racism have in any way effected the person's life. For example, with John Rocker or Sen. Trent Lott, such a section is proper. But no one of any consequence has made a big deal about what Paris said and the so called "controversy" hasn't so much as caused a blip in her popularity or career. You may really respect Rosie, but her daily musings do not encyclopedia entries make.Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand the logic going on here. When are the words "nigger" coming out of the mouth of a white person, or "faggot" coming from anyone, EVER, EVER not derogatory at the very least? What's up with the Paris sanitation going on on this site? I just don't get it. Cris Varengo 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite often, actually. --Golbez 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The terms of this debate are slightly confused. What is perceived as "Paris sanitation" may merely be the enforcement of Wikipedia policy. Although it may seem counterintuitive, for editors to derive the claim that Paris is prejudiced from the fact that she used what are considered prejudiced words in a video recording constitutes original research under Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. The claim would have to be, rather, something like this: "In light of her use of racist and homophobic epithets in video recordings posted on ParisExposed.com, Paris has been criticized for holding prejudiced views." It is essential that any such claim be attributable to a reliable and verifiable source as per WP:V.--Agnaramasi 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agnaramasi, I see your point, thank you. Golbez, I challenge you to justify your statement. Give me an example of when it is not racist for a white person to use the word "nigger" (I'm not talking about white people obsessed with black culture emulating black people referring to themselves and each other as "nigga"). Give me an example of when it is not derogatory for a heterosexual to use the word "faggot". And tell me why. Cris Varengo 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we were making a distinction between "nigger" and "nigga". Also, saying "that is so gay" or calling someone a fag or faggot is not in itself necessarily an anti-homosexual slur; it's just a way for the immature to insult others. Something can be an insult without being derogatory. --Golbez 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can somewhat reluctantly accept that logic. Doesn't mean I condone those words. Cris Varengo 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, using ethnic slurs in a non-acedemic context is an -ism, although more likely to be subconsious given her wasted situation. I can't see a single situation where it would be acceptable to use that language in any context outside of defining it, talking about it's etymology, ect. Anyways, it's all moot, the current version of the article as of this edit is in a pretty NPOV context, it just says that she used slurs, but doesn't try to guess in what context.Sabar 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabar, I happen to agree with you completely, I just didn't feel like arguing about it anymore. As you can see above, I reluctantly accepted Golbez's point of view, in the context of self-reference or academic analysis, but in practice, I don't think there is any non-derogatory way to use those words, and I personally abhor them. I just wanted to make that clear, that I accepted that Golbez's logic works..for Golbez. For me, I cringe when I hear anyone use those words.Cris Varengo 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Body

Larger breasts? Implants?

She's been on a push up bra kick lately.Bogan444 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PUSH UP BRAS DO NOT MAKE YOUR BREASTS BECOME HUGE Annoyed with fanboys 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Height

Paris is 5'7" 218.186.9.1 13:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

5'7 1/2" sometimes generalized as 5'8"

Xaritix 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Request Unblock

I understnd that this article has been blocked due to vandalism please can you unblock me so I can contribute to this page, if you look at my past contributions you will see none of them are vandalism, thank you, I look forward to editing. Beck 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not blocked; if you were you couldn't have posted your message. Not only that, but you can edit the Paris Hilton article, as your account is more than four days old. Acalamari 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph needs addition

The first paragraph should state why she was sentenced to 45 days in jail and not merely that she was. Kidshare 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Trial News?

Anyone have any news as to whether they're appealing the conviction and sentencing on the parole breach? 45 days sounds pretty heavy. Especially for someone who's going to definitely be a repeated victim of crime in a womens correctional facility, unless she was put under express guard / CPP and in isolation. Could you imagine how many convicts would be proud to say they raped Paris Hilton in gaol? Scary stuff. Jachin 09:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some good news pics @ http://news.ninemsn.com.au/slideshow.aspx?sectionid=1915&sectionname=slideshow&subsectionid=9789&photo=4 I also propose we rename this page to "Dr. Slut Bunny" :P --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I smell a reality show here! "A Night In Paris: The Cell Block H Years"! --Butseriouslyfolks 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

Could someone please change that picture of Paris in yellow? She doesnt look that hot or pretty in that pic.

If you can provide a similarly free image of higher quality then please feel free. We can't use an image from a magazine, tv show or any commercial media though.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of images is not to make people appear 'pretty' or 'hot', it's a perfectly functional picture. Slydevil 03:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know the Lynwood Prison has a special procedure for celebrity inmates. This includes a single cell and being seperated from the other inmates. But i guess we will see.

Criminal

Please put now a criminal infobox --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Added. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm defending Paris Hilton here, but that is totally pointless. She is not primarily a criminal (she might not be a criminal at all, as she is apparently appealing). James Brown or Mike Tyson don't have a criminal infobox either, or how about Nelson Mandela? WP tends to blow recent events out of proportion, and this is no different obviously. Five years from now, nobody will care about this 45 day sentence, especially as might not even serve most of the time. Sloan21 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why her old infobox would be put back after her sentance. Infoboxes are for quick information usually about a recent event or an important piece of information that simply must be known by everytone who visits the article. Having no statement at all is worse than having an overstatement. The power of the internet: You can change it as time progresses. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to influence the world. We are here to document things in a neutral way and making the fact that she was given jail time the most prominent thing on her article is not neutral. She has a lot of other aspects to her life which are higher profile.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

She deliberately broke the law and endangered the lives of other people by driving around drunk on a suspended license. She thought she was above the law and that her lawyer could distort the situation to her advantage. I'd say that makes her a criminal. What does she have to hit someone with her car first? Annoyed with fanboys 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is besides the point. The criminal infobox is intended for those people on this site who are career criminals as far as I know - Paris Hilton has a couple of relatively minor crimes against her name but has many other aspects of her life. Using the criminal infobox would give undue weight to a relatively minor blip in her life so far.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Backlash to "Free Paris" campaign

While much focus has been on fans and supporters of Ms. Hilton protesting her pending incarceration, a number of petitions have emerged supporting Judge Mintz's decision to sentence Ms. Hilton to 45 days in jail. RegularLAgal 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)RegularLAgal

Added to article & cited - Tiswas^(t) 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Now i have a very low opinion of America the reasons for this are to many to type here, now when i read that her mother viewed the prison she would be sent to & was appalled by the conditions. IT'S A PRISON not a holiday camp she broke the law & she must be punished for that. Why is there a free Paris campign? She's not a polictical prisoner, she has not been judged or sentenced unfairly so why? Now if you want to change my opinion of America do what you can to see that she does serve her time. And those who don't care about my opinion you're one of the reasons i hate America. Yours Grimm MD

Weasel Words

"In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office claimed that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."

Okay, so the statement of the Los Angeles Attorney's Office that she broke the law, which can be legally proven and backed by sound evidence, is a "CLAIM" and Paris Hilton's word which she cannot even begin to substantiate is reality? Please.

It should read: "In March 2007, the Los Angeles City's Attorney's Office ruled that Hilton violated the terms of her DUI probation by speeding without her headlights on, driving with a suspended license, and failing to enroll in a court-ordered alcohol education program."

The Paris fan club needs to be banned from wiki. All of the weasel words and POV nonsense on this page is disgusting. Annoyed with fanboys 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

STATING THAT A BINDING GOVERNMENT RULING IS A "CLAIM" IS POV. PERIOD. Annoyed with fanboys 06:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You will find that an attorney's office can't make rulings - they can only build a case against a person built from 'claims' the judge overseeing a trial makes a ruling and as such the attorney's were proven right - but they still made claims and nothing more. Please do not use caps to shout at editors as it makes you seem more fanatical than the fanboys you seem to be annoyed with...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Main Issues I Have With this Article

All kidding aside, Paris Hilton did make highly offensive statements that could be intepreted as racist and homophobic in a public place and on video. The problem is that the article (and the discussion here) favors omitting this. No one is saying she should be called a racist or a homophobe. You can say racist and homophobic things without being racist or a homophobe. However, it is relevant because it is indicative of the maturity level of a high profile celebrity who is an influence on many young women.

The second problem is the idea that the Los Angeles City Attorney's office has made a CLAIM that Paris broke the law. It isn't a claim. It was a legal ruling based on her actions. The government of Los Angeles has more credibility in an encyclopedia article than a celebrity and her army of lawyers. She has even conceded that she is guilty at this stage. Annoyed with fanboys 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I do have a bias against Ms. Hilton, however that bias would never come out in any contributions I would add to the article were it not locked. I would just present facts. Annoyed with fanboys 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Attorney's Office made a claim - the judge ruled. That is as simple as it gets.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No mention at all of Prison

Why is there no mention at all of the prison issue? Even if thr issue is relatively minor, it did happen, and there should be AT LEAST a sentence to reflect this. After all, a sex tape got a whole section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.121.245 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

There is an entire paragraph in the 'Personal Life' section...-Localzuk^(talk) 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion?

What happened to the article, was it AfD'ed? Nate 08:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted to remove some idiotic edits, as it turned out, it had 7344 revisions so it took about 27 minutes to restore. John Reaves (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't enjoy Paris alot, but yeah, that's pretty brutal if you have to delete to protect and fix content. I salute anyone that can handle such a targeted article. Nate 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton on March 22, 2007, but it was closed as speedy keep, as it was a bad-faith and point nomination. Acalamari 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Video was kinda Grainy.

Anyone else think we should edit in (under the sex tape portion) that it (the tape) was and I quote "boring and grainy"? I watched it, and thats just what it was. Boring and grainy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paladin Hammer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Besides, she has no gag reflex. Now that is talent! Annoyed with fanboys 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not want your opinions. Please see WP:NOR. --Yamla 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for asking first though. Sloan21 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Could anyone please tell why Paris passes the notability guidelines? Salaskan 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple independent reliable sources have published non-trivial coverage of her. Mike Christie (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus her having an album/some singles which made it into the charts, her having her own TV show and having been in multiple movies pretty much indicates that she is notable.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)