Talk:Paris Hilton/Archive 2

Cause Célèbre
Link to Cause célèbre? 24.4.10.67 06:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tinkerbell (dog)
8:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even it's Paris' dog there's no need to merge the dog to the article. Paris is not Tinkerbell--Hotwiki 12:03, 26 January 2006 (UT
 * By that logic, "Weird Al" Yankovic's dog Bela deserves her own article, too. Bela is responsible for the title of Al's album Poodle Hat, she appears on the album cover, and her barking can be heard in one of the songs on that album.  However, a wikipedia article on Bela would be ridiculous, and Tinkerbell being an article apart from the Hilton article is just as silly.  While we're at it, the presidential pets should all be merged into a single article, there's no reason for any of them to have their own articles either. Ugliness Man 12:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, Paris Hilton has already chucked the dog, she has a new one, so yeah I agree with Hotwiki, delete it. -Summerwind
 * Reports of her having dumped Tinkerbell are only tabloid rumors at this point.--Fallout boy 09:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I was originally planning to vote for merging the dog article but I had no idea the dog is now a media personality in its own right. As deeply frightening as that is, a reluctant vote for keep. --Rhi 17:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Tinkerbell into the Tinkerbell page to keep this page from getting any longer. Maybe in a couple years we can delete the mutt when its no longer notable. Thatcher131 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

How about...
"unwitting porn star"? ;-) -Kasreyn 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not funny--Hotwiki 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny or not, it's a lot more legitimate reason to even have an article than all this "entrepreneur" and "singer" crap. The reason the world knows her name is for the sex tape, not for anything she's done in broad daylight.  There's a difference between fame and notoriety.  For instance, Wil Wheaton is a lot more famous as "Wesley" from Star Trek than he is for anything he's done since, much to his dismay - but he can't change that, it's simply the nature of being a celebrity.  The nature of Paris Hilton's notoriety is that it arose from the sex tape.  I think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to point out the specific things that brought a celebrity into the spotlight - whether that spotlight is white or night-vision green.  :P  -Kasreyn 00:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with nothing you said. "Unwitting porn star" lol it only means that you hate her--Hotwiki 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hate? Why would I waste my energy hating someone as unimportant as her?  I may have chosen to say it in an ironic way, but I meant what I said - the only reason so many people even care about her is because of her sex tape.  From the viewpoint of wikipedia, it's the most important detail of her life.  -Kasreyn 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unimportant as her? I see --Hotwiki 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe we can keep the pages unbiased--which doesn't mean leaving it out. Only wording it as not to arrouse debate. Sound good?24.4.10.67 07:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Salary

I changed what she earns because it says she earned 7.5 million and 15.5 million according to forbes.com well that is a lie because if you go on past lists she earned 2 million from 2003-2004 and 6.5 million from 2004-2005

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


 * I guess if there's a war going on with this article it's everyone's problem. I was simply trying to make contact with whoever is working on this. Someone has commented in the history 203.49.212.87 (RV! RhiannonLassiter and others, please stop vandalising.) and I have a suspicion that I'm being reverted on principle because someone here has incorrectly identified me as a vandal - perhaps confusing me with some Paris Hilton fans who've been here vandalising recently. I just want to reassure other users I'm not stripping anything except duplicate content. I have no interest in censoring the wiki.
 * On the pornstar issue, I really liked the unwitting porn star wording. --Rhi 11:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Pazuzu567 isn't actually looking at my changes at all now. Despite my creation of this section and creating a talk page for their username to try to discuss the issue, he/she reverted me again with the edit summary (Rv to my last version, to remove RhiannonLassiter's vandalism once again!). Can anyone help me convince this person that my edits are in good faith and useful to the article? I have combined the various separate business ventures such as fragrances into the 'model, actress, entrepeneur' section. I have moved all the different 'controversies' into a controversies section with separate heading levels. I have expanded the racism controversy to add details from the two sources cited. I have deleted the 1 night in Paris section because it is a duplicate of content that appears earlier on the page. I have moved the paragraphs on engagements to the general background section. I have added to the section on the Simple Life These are all good faith edits. Pazuzu doesn't own this article, and the version he/she is trying to reinstate is obsolete, people other than me have made changes to the version I have been reverting.--Rhi 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the way the page was put together to begin with, and you basically just came on one day, and changed it from top to bottom. This is why I was reverting it. In case you didn't notice, others besides me did too. Don't make me out to be the lone "villain" in this situation. As far as you believing the way the page is now is correct, suit yourself. Others besides myself are likely to disagree too, but I will leave the page be. I won't appologize, because I don't think I was particularly in the wrong here, but I suppose you aren't either Rhiannon, so I will let you be. Have fun with this page. Most of us are fans and we all just want the best for this page, that much is for sure. Pazuzu567 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing to talk about it. Yes, I did just come along one day and reorder the article. That is quite true. But it's not fair to say there was nothing wrong with it. What about the duplicate text, for a start? I'm sure it's come a long way from its beginnings but sometimes a fresh eye can spot errors when regular editors don't.
 * Although I glanced through the talk page I didn't notice there was current tension here or I wouldn't have made such substantial changes without mentioning them. However, I don't think I need a proven track record of working with this article to contribute to it. Kasreyn who says above that his reverts were to prevent the categorisation of 'porn star' being removed. (Something that itself was not vandalism but an innocent mistake by Dominus.) I understand it must be frustrating to have to fight off vandalism here. But please don't be so quick to assume it. Wikipedia advises that changes are bold. Does anyone here think my edits failed to improve the article? I'm willing to go with consensus. --Rhi 09:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not quite true - I happened to undo the porn star cat war because someone blanked the racist slur allegation and I was reverting that vandalism. The porn star category is of less interest to me than actual concrete facts regarding Hilton. As for me, I think both Rhiannon and Pazuzu have edited in good faith. -Kasreyn 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


 * She is mentioned as a porn star on the Adult Film Datebase Skalle 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A porn star is a professional employed in the adult entertainment industry. Thus, I think the American porn stars category is inappropriate for Paris Hilton.  - GilliamJF 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But she did eventually make money out of it!, so I say the porn star category is correct. Bronks 12:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive the talk page?
With the current disputes seeming to have been resolved or at least moving that way, should we move on to archiving the earlier talk page discussions? It's at 68 kilobytes now which is twice the recommended size. I could just do it, but I don't want to appear to be trying to take over here. Does anyone else want to? --Rhi 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Archiving sounds ok to me. --Rob 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend keeping the discussion sections on racism allegations and porn star category, though. Those are still being vandalized and/or reverted on a regular basis, which to me indicates they're not resolved yet.  Cheers,  Kasreyn 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've archived it to /Archive 1. Jude (talk,contribs) 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

You are joking....surely? Helen of Troy wasn't famous for her beauty but happened to be beautiful as well as a great leader, tactician and an athletic warrior. I don't need to even mention the other names to make the point stick. All the real world sees of paris is a racist a manipulator a brat and a porn actress. Sadly the glossy mags lap it up and the lonely people with nothing but glossy to 'splash' out on love it even more. Beauty is timeless...so what time does paris start?


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

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


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


 * That's why the section is called "allegations of racism", not "proof of". One statement does not constitute proof, merely a clue.  And yes, I've used the word before, when I brought it home from school at age six.  My dad gave me a spanking and told me never to use that word in his home again.  I never have used it since.  The difference is, Paris Hilton is not six, she is an adult.  Furthermore, she is a celebrity and therefore, deservedly or not, a role model for young girls.  So she is held to a higher standard of behavior than other adults, because she is in the public eye and her actions can affect the behavior of young girls.
 * Your statement about "racism against whites" is the silliest thing I've heard come out of your mouth yet. Did you forget to turn your brain on before you opened your mouth?  Racism against white people would be if a black person was calling white people names.  We are talking about a white person calling black people names.  Get it straight.
 * In general, I feel I should point out that you seem awfully concerned over Hilton's reputation, and not very concerned over whether she might start a trend of making racism "cool" to young girls. That makes me wonder about you, Wallie.  -Kasreyn 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * Have you ever said this word? Be honest now
 * No, Wallie, I never have, and that's the honest truth. To do so is a mark of stupidity, ignorance and naïvety. --^pirate 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


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


 * I dont think the emphasis is on that word. I think it might be the fact that she called them stupid. I don't think ive ever said stupid n*****s in my life, and i dont think many of you have.

Thank you, Yamla.
I'd give you a barnstar, but I don't know how. :) -Kasreyn 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:Barnstar--hottie 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  -Kasreyn 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Tsk tsk. Swearing too. Perhaps you need to attend a good anger management course. I could recommend one if you like. The expert may advise you to direct your energies away from Paris and me to a more beneficial cause. Wallie 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * User Wallie should stop protecting his "lady-luv" and try helping the others clean up acts of vandalism or atleast stop giving the others a hard time for giving accurate verifiable facts. Your infatuation with Paris Hilton is very POV. I think this article is very good information. 59.93.242.77 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

This allegation just has no credibility in my book. There is no dispute about first tape. It exists and many people including myself have see it. If in fact this tape existed, with all the contents that are claimed on it, it would be extremely valuable and there is no doubt it would have been released by the English Tabloids. The whole gossip item exists of one person who is a tabloid reporter claiming she saw something in 2004 on a video. Just ask yourself if this Tabloid reporter had accesss to this tape what really would have happened to it? They would have least have shown pictures on their site. Who even knows if the person on the tape if it exists is Paris Hilton or a imposter? I don't believe it meets wikpedia standards and it should be delelted completely.(Doug rosenberg 06:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)).

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

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

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


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


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

Even as a Paris fan, I think the racism section should be restored.
The reason for that being, if the racism controvery has to be removed, the whole controvery section should be too.

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

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

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


 * Yes, I would like to see these "controversies" removed too. These are not controversies, but accusations. For a controversy, there has to be a discussion. The central theme of this section is simply to report what some gossip/sex columnist has stated as "fact", followed up by "this is not true" type comments by the recipient of the attacks and/or friends. I don't particularly like the whole article, but it is a big improvement without the most offensive bit, the so called "racist" section. I would be also quite happy to see the article locked for perpetuity, as the article will probably get worse and worse, like "The Picture of Dorian Gray". Wallie 13:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen, so no point in bringing it up. --Golbez 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. When you unlock the article, I guess things will then again degrade quite quickly. I am a realist. Wallie 20:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not locked. It's protected from anonymous IPs. Permanent semi-protection is possible; what you seemed to be suggesting is permanent protection. --Golbez 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

== ResKill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right.

Kill all losers. They aer faggoty and wanta have it done. get right. one thing and act in another way. Wallie 06:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless someone adds citations, I'm going to remove it. Pazuzu567 09:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/08/entertainment/main1380841.shtml is this enough to add it. again added due to vandal reverts trying to hide link.

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/08/entertainment/main1380841.shtml is this enough to add it. again added due to vandal reverts trying to hide link.

hello...source stated but continues to be ignored...i notice it has been removed previously also. says a lot for this fan site.


 * If you want something to be added to the article, don't bitch on the talk page - edit the article yourself! VoluntarySlave 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

we do but if it put's paris in a bad light they delete it.

yes noticed that too. that's where Wiki fails. too many people with 'pet' subjects wanting to make some kind of shrine to even the most insignificant of media hiccups.

has anyone else noticed how pet subjects of these minor causes seem to get better and bigger coverage than real celebrities or historical figures? display facts and show links that go against the dream of a wiki rep and it gets trashed. it is a fact based creation turned to fantasy. that's why wiki has no credibility.195.93.21.100


 * Stop spamming. It's been ignored because we are no longer even bothering with focusing on "controversies". Read more below. Wikipedia has plenty or credibility, people who don't sign their posts are ghosts as far as I am concerned, and they are the ones who have no credibility. Celebrity-Benji 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh climb off your pedestal. You choose to ignore facets of an individual because it spoils YOUR image of a person whose fame is down to her heritage. The restraining order is as much a reflection of her character as is the perfumes you choose to put in, the difference being she only puts her name behind the perfumes. She doesn't make them she doesn't even design the box, but at least she created the restraining order. The fact that pet subjects and not true pictures exist on wiki brings it down and sadly your sainting of such media blips reinforces the fact that people such as yourself force down any shred of credibility. show the true picture and not a made up one. put in the fact her voice is synthesized on 'her' records put in the fact a major part of her notoriety is a porn flick, put in the bad as well as the good and maybe, just maybe, you will gain some respect. and as for not putting a name on does not make the comments any less valid or valuable and your ignorance of this shows how insular and isolated wiki is viewed.195.93.21.100
 * LMAO! Thankyou for your complete lack of input Mr. Nobody. But your bitching in here isn't doing anything for anyone. You still haven't learned to sign your posts. I doubt you're even a member. Whatever rubbish it is you're going on about, it's deffinately falling on deaf ears. And there's a reason. Now hater, kindly go back to IMDB, where your sladerous and hateful views will probably be appreciated. Celebrity-Benji 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pazuzu, perhaps a reread of WP:CIVIL might be in order. You'll be interested to note that it applies to your interactions with all Wikipedia editors, not just registered and logged-in ones.  There are no second-class editors here.  195.etc continues to make cogent arguments and you continue to refuse to debate them.  "Whatever rubbish you're going on about", "I still don't really know what you're talking about, nor do I care", etc.  And 195.etc has only barely been more civil than you, so this note is also for him.  Pazuzu, if you are interested in defending this article from "vandals" as you perceive them, you can't just say "I refuse to discuss it with you" to an editor you disagree with.  You don't have that option.  If you want to have a leg to stand on for reverting him, you take it to talk and you calmly and civilly prove him wrong.  No matter how obvious the answer may seem to you, you still have to explain it.  Also, note that signing one's posts is considered polite but is also not a requirement for being a constructive editor here.  You're judging 195.etc using standards that do not exist.  Kasreyn 10:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, Kasreyn. But I'm not even going to bother continuing this "conversation" with 195. All I've witnessed is him posting here and complaining about the state of the article, and yet doing nothing to improve it himself.


 * What I'm stating is that if he were to add lurid and offensive content to the article, something myself and others constantly revert this page daily beacause of, I would have no choice but to revert it again.


 * He has stated his opinion differs from what is written in the page, and he wants it changed to suit his opinion better. I'm stating; I'm not going to stand by and watch that happen. His opinion of Miss Hilton, that she is this that and the other have nothing to do with her background or career, honestly.


 * This article does not at any time supply text to say "PARIS IS GREAT AT EVERYTHING SHE DOES" It does however provide information on the careers she has started and her background. It does this in a neautral way. I am not going to let 195 edit the article to write uncited POV statements.


 * All this article does is provide information on the careeers and background of Miss Paris Hilton. It does not say she was great or horrible at any of it. It does point out the success of her careers, these are backed up with citation. We do also point out the negative influence in her career, sex tape, Razzie, etc. If say for example Hilton's single totally flopped, and only charted at # 1,457 it would be there. This article is neutral, but it's not going to focus on uncesacary tabloid reports that belong on page six. She is not making a career based on third-hand reports of racism, her background is not in restraining orders that are long since settled.


 * The Controversies section that added little/nothing to this article was removed, and if 195 and others had taken the time to read further discussion and view history of the page they would realize there is no Controversies section, and hence, no place to even restore the article about the restraining order.


 * And I will admit, perhaps my mannerisms and emotive language with 195 during this discussion could have been better, but 195 has done nothing but complain about the state of the article and attack me as a bad editor when he is not even polite enough to sign his posts when trying to have a "discussion" and has even gone so far as to delete my posts and replace them with his. I'm sorry if the way my posts in here do not seem co-operative with 195, but that's only because 195 seems non-co-operative, and his behavior in this talk-page reflects that.


 * I'm going to reinstate that I believe 195 to be an attention seeker (dare I say troll) due to the very factor of; A) his behavior on this Talk Page, particularly towards myself & B) his lack of even trying to edit the page himself. This is perhaps why I have not taken this discussion very seriously. I'm not saying this is an excuse for not following what is mapped out in WP:CIVIL, but as you said, 195 could stand to read this himself. And like I said, I will not be continuing this conversationg with 195, it is going nowhere, and to tell you the truth I don't know why I bothered replying to such posts in the first place. I for one will not be restoring the article on the Restraining Order, or any of the other controversies. I will, however, be keeping a close eye on what goes on with the Paris Hilton page. Celebrity-Benji 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And still with the link for the restraining order that was demanded you refuse to put it in. i leave the name off as may main work is on actual people of note and see wiki turning into somekind of sycophantic sister of the tragic Hello magazine. it is being taken over by glossy magazine style projects and the work on Hiltons sibling is the worst of it's kind. Whatever sladerous means i don't know but hateful? never. the term is realistic. i know and fully understand why you have no concept of that word because you choose to read the no-brainer glossy mags and lap it up. you actually believe she makes the perfume, sings the songs and is a talented actress with no faults whatsoever? surely, the porn flick, the racist abuse, the lack of respect for anyone and the sheer excess she portrays should have some inclusion. i imagine if we left the whole of wiki to such starry eyed sycophants such as yourself then Saddam Hussain would be an ex Leader in a hot sunny place who had a fine taste in electrics and even had his own brand of food which was evocative of the country he created it in. Hitler a top interior designer who led the country into the odd scuffle in his spare time. Please take the glitter ball out of your head and see the real world.195.93.21.100
 * What are you going on about? Hitler and other rubbish have nothing to do with anything. Edit the article yourself if you're so irate about it. I'll revert it citing vandalism, POV and slander. I've signed your posts by your IP for you. Try doing it yourself in future. Kthanxbye. Celebrity-Benji 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The point you have missed so painfully is that no matter how bad the individual is, and from the proof that is ignored here, you choose to leave out the things that are the very substance of the person. You cannot paint mutton to look like lamb. You have to show a person, minor celebrity or not, as they are and not how YOU want them to be. It is not a case of you reverting for any other reason other than it destroys how you want people to see this individual/ You have to remember that should this person still be a 'popular' glossy mag figure in 10 years time, which i doubt, then if wiki still holds any credibility and people visit this is what they will see and not a true reflection of the person as she was. 195.93.21.100 12:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't really know what you're talking about, nor do I care. And funnilly enough, you STILL don't know how to sign your posts properly. lol Celebrity-Benji 09:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

by putting in ill educated and pointless retorts you prove your lack of understanding and lack of worth into this debate. you obviously have little understanding of the real world and live it thru the glossy mags. you show all the traits of everything that is bad about wiki. you choose to ignore what has been put in here to actually show the real person so that your ideal vision can be portrayed and it is to the detriment of wiki. you act as both bully and ignoramus. well done. sad that all you managed to gain out of this is the hollow laugh at the lack of a signature. well done mr/ms benji...195.93.21.100 12:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You like to repeat yourself alot don't you? "Glossy mags" etc. I'm not even going to justify replying to you anymore. You're clearly just trolling this Talk Page trying to get attention. My "ill educated and pointless retorts" only come about due to ill educated and pointless posts on this page by some random annonymous IP. You haven't even tried to edit the page, all you've done is come in here and start complaining, rambling on about all sorts of nonsense from "Glossy mags" to "Hitler" and you wonder why people are ignoring you. Allow me to do the same from this point onwards. Good bye Mr Annonymous IP 195.93.21.100, whoever you are. Celebrity-Benji 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, you would make a politician by ignoring the point. let me make it simple for you as seem to be the only one unable to grasp the point. you asked for a link to a restraining order, you got one. you then create a new idea called controversy which basically excludes the things you don't like about this person so you can leave everything from racism to porn out, thus making it seem she is above any wrong doing. and as for repetiton, the only point you can make is the fact you noticed there is no name after these posts...ill educated and pointless? i think the fact you have no understanding of the points made and your total lack of ability to debate without resorting to insult prove my point. i can only assume you have issues.
 * I must tell you the same thing I told Pazuzu: insults and incivility serve no purpose here.  I would tend to agree that Pazuzu does not have a valid reason for dismissing your arguments, but that does not give you an excuse to sink to the same level.  I have added the link with an NPOV writeup.  Please try to rein in your tongue even when sorely frustrated, and I'm sure you'll do OK at Wikipedia.  Kasreyn 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for a reasoned response. i am trying to look for balance within these type of records that's all and think that a snapshot of a person should show both good and bad. i apologise if there were any bad feelings and should not have been dragged down as you rightly pointed out. and thanks again.


 * Why are you encouraging a known vandal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.93.21.136 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.93.21.100 Celebrity-Benji 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were new to wiki benji. when not signed in your isp has a block number generally so the same address can be assigned to many different users. the additions i make are not vandalism as you perceive it, but are just a more realistic portrayal. i do not condone vandalism which would be considered insulting or unreliable and have never used inappropriate or racist language on any post. that point i would like to make most strongly.


 * Ok, so all the times your IP has been blocked for vandalism to Paris Hilton is a conincidence, and that was never you? How many people assigned to your IP feel the need to remove whole sections of Paris Hilton just like you have been doing over and over? Celebrity-Benji 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say yes as i have never printed anything insulting on any of the records i have contributed to. whatever issue you have is fine. your dismissal of anything other than your own is not. this is not your record it is a collective effort and you will do well to remember that. you cannot simply revert others work if you don't agree with it. if say 100,000 have the same IP is it not conceivable that 1% would vist wikihilton and edit? that's a potential of 100 with 100,000 being an underestimate. hope that helps.


 * You're not helping by removing whole sections and pasting whole URL's. That is blatant vandalism, the same vandalism warnings on your Talk Page have been issued about before. So, why don't you create an account to avoid being connected to such vandals? Celebrity-Benji 15:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism as i see it is the adding of dirty language and blatant lies. the link to a review of the single, which states she does not actually 'sing' the final edits, is valid. she is not a designer, show citation she is. she is patently not a singer. she has proven a racist side AND also a pornographic side these a widley publicised but not in this portrayal. can you see that point at least? iam not trying to bring down the person, more so trying to paint a full picture. my decision to hold an account or edit occasionally without logging in is my own. Stephen King wrote novels under assumed names, any reason why?


 * Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

There is no reduction just informing. Her voice is explained as so poor it need machine enhancement. it does not claim, it states. i assume you could say that is a citation?


 * That is what you are doing. The article you linked to is point of view, not valid at all.

Proof you do not read what you delete.


 * To get Paris to sound like such an accomplished singer, her producers fattened up the skinny heiress' sound by layering her voice upon her voice -- several times. The echo effect is almost imperceptible, but it manages to erase any trace of thinness. It also erases any trace of identity.


 * That is an opinion not a fact, hence this, even in your words, is a review. A review; thoughts and opinions. Don't post it again, it holds no relavance what-so-ever. It states against Hilton's own statements that she won't be touring, when in fact she will. That is hardly a relaible source.

Do you read what you copy and paste? Obviously not. It actually explains how the voice is manipulated to sound in tune. She will only tour if she can mime.


 * Go to Amazon.com, type in "Paris Hilton collection" and what do you get?


 * Sterling Silver and Crystal Heart Earrings by Paris Hilton
 * Sterling Silver Rosary Bead Necklace w/ Crystal Cross, 18" by Paris Hilton
 * Sterling Silver, Stainless Steel and Crystal Heart Belly Bar, 1" by Paris Hilton
 * Sterling Silver and Crystal Star Pendant, 18" by Paris Hilton
 * Sterling Silver and Crystal Star Hoop Earrings by Paris Hilton
 * Small Crystal Dog Collar, 15" by Paris Hilton
 * Sterling Silver Anklet w/ Crystal Hearts, 10 5/8" by Paris Hilton
 * Sterling Silver and Crystal Single Heart Charm Bracelet, 8" by Paris Hilton
 * Sterling Silver Belly Chain w/ Crystal Hearts, 43" by Paris Hilton


 * I highly doubt a larage corperation like Amazon would constitue false advertising.

I would say yes judging by this link... http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html/002-7098594-9608024?node=13633661  so now the dog itself inspires it's own range! Do you believe George Foreman made all those grills..?


 * Racism was not proven. Can you please post an mp3 or wav file of her with a racist quote? Pornographic side? 1 Night in Paris. Enjoy editing that article.

I would suggest that the actual people involved are a suitable source, wouldn't you?


 * As far as an acount is concerned, there is no reason for you not to create one. You're going to be associated with vandals, and if you claim you are not one, why not solve the problem and create the acount? If not, I have every reason to assume you are the vary same vandal that has been blocked mutliple times. And its for doing the same stuff you're doing here. I'm not going to back down from this. Stop vandalising. Celebrity-Benji 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You have every reason to believe that? By your in admission that is POV and irrelevant in this text...should i remove your text therefore? i am not so small-minded and petty. I have no need, or time wasting inclination, to vandalise. Just because you add your name to your selective study makes you a vandal in the way you have submitted the previous text. Adding your name just initials it. You have already been warned about ignoring other contributors text. Heed it well.

i notice Benji again fails to answer when proof and reasonable comment is added. can someone with an interest in portraying a full image of the person comment on the text and citation listed please?

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

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


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


 * RE: ''"It's a pity about the reversions, but I don't consider it my problem. For example, someone (IP 203.etc.etc.etc, check history) blanked the section on the allegations of racism. Then several users worked on the article, mostly having a revert war over cat: porn star. I have just now reverted all these edits to my last one to restore the allegations of racism. If you have a problem with the allegations of racism, take it to the talk page - I created a section just for that reason.
 * If it upsets any of those editors that I reverted them, they should be aware that if they had reverted the blanking of the racism allegations themselves, I would not have had to be involved. Let's all do our jobs here. -Kasreyn 05:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)"''


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Golbez did delete the entire "racism" section in the first place, with an explanation. It was reinstated by someone else. I then attempted to explain with references that implying that Maung, the initiator of these, in my belief, total false and displicable allegations, is not a person to be trusted. Golbez then tactically switched sides and removed this proof. As far as representing a majority is concerned, I have never even hinted at that. I only refered to decent minded people. In fact, I am actually in a minority in this. Doesn't mean to say the minority or I are wrong, though. I also said the allegations are probably false, as this is a discussion page, and not in the main article. I was basing this on Maung's past history of allegations against Michael Jackson, Olivia Newton John, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears and others. I personally think the British reporter Maung, as she refers to herself, should not be given credibilty on Wikipedia. It all comes down to whether you trust Maung or Hilton. Wallie 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't about switching sides, this was solely about removing unsubstantiated links of Maung being a disreputable reporter. Making allegations doesn't mater - you have to find someone else (not you) who says that the allegations SHE made specifically are false. --Golbez 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is an issue for consulting WP:RS. What IS the Wikipedia policy when the reliability of a source is contested and there's no "common sense" answer?  (ie., it's common sense not to cite the Washington Times, or the Voz de Aztlan, or other extreme POV papers)  If there's no publically-accepted reality of Maung's reliability, one way or the other, then what is the process we are supposed to use to determine her reliability?  For instance, what are Wallie's options?  Does he need to provide some set number of verifiable (as in sourced) examples of her unreliability?  Is reliability something that is declared by administrative fiat?  I'm honestly very curious.  I'd never heard of Maung before this argument arose, and so I know nothing about her except what she has said about Ms. Hilton, and what Wallie has accused her of.  How am I, an editor, supposed to make a decision on her reliability/unreliability?  -Kasreyn 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is almost impossible to find criticism of one journalist by another. And it is these people that we are quoting, are we not? I would have thought that the sort of article and employer that Maung is associated with speaks for itself. The articles are usually full of smutty sensationalism and/or stuff with strong right bias, typical of the "stories" in News of the World. The problem is that she is quoted as being a British reporter, and the word British still seems to make some in the US bow and scrape, or be somehow impressed. Folks in other countries are not so easily overcome. In addition to that her Chinese name probably adds even more credibility for some. But look at what she writes, and judge from that. I did provide plenty of examples, to indicate where she is coming from, but they failed the Golbez test. O well... Wallie 19:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh?? You've completely lost me, Wallie.  How is Brandon Davis's ethnicity even remotely noteworthy in that section?  He's not the one being accused of being racist.  Kasreyn 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You can't have it both ways. Ethnicity is important in this case. If you "racially profile" some people, better do it to everyone... Lets lay all the cards on the table. Otherwise, get rid of the "African-American" put-down. Wallie 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. Davis is not being accused of racism.  He's essentially nothing but a potential witness to the event.  If he had not been present, and Hilton had just muttered "dumb niggers" under her breath and was caught on tape with no one else there, the allegations would still be the same.  We don't actually need, as far as I can tell, to actually make much mention of Davis in the article.  We do so only for completeness purposes (so readers won't be confused as to who she said it to).  It could have been Bozo the Clown with her at the party for all it matters.  So, let's try this again:  explain why Davis's ethnicity is notable in this context, since he's neither the offender nor the victim in the alleged offense?  P.S.  Look up racial profiling, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  -Kasreyn 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lazy Eye
this fact should be included, and why the hell is this page still locked??? SOMEone is watching...
 * What fact? She has a lazy eye? How on earth is that remotely notable? And it's only locked to new and anonymous users. --Golbez 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

of course it should be in. it is a big part of her appearance. it might help people with some actual talent AND a lazy eye to try and make something more of their confidence.

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

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

I'm also wondering exactly *why* we spend time on Sydney. How is she notable? Was her performance clearly and deliberately intended as a parody of Paris Hilton, or just in the opinion of whoever added her? Can we get a source? Kasreyn 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember if it was I who added Sydney Drew as a prody of Paris Hilton (it could've been, not sure) but it is certainly true, and blatantly obvious if you watch the show.Pazuzu567 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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


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

This is racist
''In 2004, Carole Aye Maung, reporter for the British tabloid News of the World[18], said that she viewed a tape that showed Hilton and Tommy Hilfiger model Brandon Davis in conversation with two African-American men who asked Hilton if she would model for them. After the men left the scene, Hilton allegedly referred to them as "dumb niggers."''

Brandon Davis is mentioned by name. The two people with whom he is having a conversation are simply referred to as "African-Americans". This is not good. If the article was NPOV, it would mention their names too. Are you people so prejudiced as not to recognise this? Wallie 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF, do not call others prejudiced please. Also, if their names are available, then that might be a good idea. However, no offense to them, but they aren't notable as people - in this case, merely their skin color is. --Golbez 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * AGF means Assume Good Faith. I have definitely not had this treatment from some others, including yourself, on this article. When you and I have disagreed, you have been very quick to pull rank and slam me personally. If they are not notable as people, then why mention them in the article? They are every bit as notable as some Tommy Hilfiger model. The only reason why their names are not mentioned is precisely because of their color. Wallie 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't recall ever "pulling rank," Willie. --Golbez 20:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems to be quite a leap. Isn't it more likely that the reporter simply didn't get their names?  On what basis do you leap to the conclusion that the reporter didn't get their names because of their color?  Or decided not to mention their names because of their color?  I often read newspaper articles where some names are left out.  I've never before assumed that only African-American people don't get their name mentioned.  --Yamla 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is quite true. Lets be honest. If people are spoken of in a group, and they are black, the are OFTEN referred to as African-Americans, or some other term which is there purely to denote they are black, not that they come from Africa. If the group of people are white, then their color is not usually mentioned. Why is this? Think about it! Wallie 20:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SUrely they were named as African Americans so that it made obvious their colour. Paris Hilton showed what being a spoilt brat does, she has no reason to hold such an entry on Wiki, all she is famous for is spending her parents petty cash and manufacturing the release of a porn film.


 * I live in Canada and race relations tend to be rather different here than in the U.S. But your point is, I'm sure valid.  That said, in this particular case, the colour of these two people's skin was directly relevant to what was being reported.  --Yamla 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. By the way I never realised that Canadians spell "colour" with a "U". I am sure that these attitudes vary from state to state in the US too. It may be just me. But I can smell the attitude in Maung's article. I hate it. It takes a swipe at both black and white people at the same time. It should not anywhere near Wikipedia. Wallie 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wallie, only two people's, or groups of people's, races matter in an allegation of racially insensitive remarks. Let me make this crystal clear for you with the magic of bullet points:


 * The race of the alleged insensitive remarker.
 * The race(s) of the alleged insensitive remarkee(s).


 * And that is it. The race(s) of nonparticipant bystanders, such as Davis, are utterly meaningless in such a situation.  They neither made the statement, nor were the target of it.  It has nothing to do with them.  That is why I said Davis might as well be Bozo the Clown, for all it mattered.


 * If you're still wondering why the only people whose races are mentioned in the paragraph are the black men's, I might point out that it's very safe to assume our readers know that Paris Hilton is white. Or "Caucasian" if you prefer.  Hers can be assumed, theirs is a required aspect of relating the allegation, and Davis's is absolutely irrelevant.  Please, please tell me you finally get this.  I'm tired of explaining it.  Kasreyn 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Paris Hilton's color does not need to be mentioned in this article. For one thing there is a rather large picture at the top right hand side of the article, and she is mentioned by name. As far as bullet points are concerned, I'm sure you would prefer real ones in my case. So the metaphor has definitely not been lost on me. The fact remains that Paris Hilton is being accused of racism, which is very serious indeed. To make it stand, every single person's credibility, point of view and most of all reasons for saying it need to be scrutinised. Just because you are keen to see this smear stand doesn't mean you can shut down others who disagree with you. Wallie 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to shut down your opposition to the inclusion of the allegations. I'm just saying that there's no point in mentioning Davis's race, since he has nothing to do with the incident except having witnessed it.  Kasreyn 01:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
Much of the article, especially the section on Controveries is sourced from tabloid newspapers, scandal sheets, and gossip columnists. They print material, which is often unsubstantiated. The allegations in the section, require proof. In my belief, someone has just made up some of these stories. I cannot see any article from a reliable newspaper. This whole section, heavily POV laden, is full of citations which do not support what is being stated in the article, and in some cases, no longer exist! Wallie 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same token then it is your pov that she is beautiful, i know more people who see her as plain or not attractive so by that score she should be described as plain at the very least in the article.

Worst dog owner
I reverted it based on the edit summaries. For instance, "To say she is the worst dog owner ever is plain false. She is not seen often with her dog Tinkerbell either - also false. Do not pint lies.)" First part first, "To say she is the worst dog owner ever is plain false."  If that's what the poll said, that's what it said.  Is it subjective, yes.  But then what poll isn't?  If we put in George W. Bush's article that polls say he's the worst president ever, that wouldn't be taken out because it's "false".  It was a poll!  That was the result!  The only way a poll can be false is if the data were tampered with.  Secondly, PH is still known for carrying a dog with her.  She may not do it anymore but she did and was known for it.  Should we also remove info about Betty Page doing pinup shots since she doesn't do it anymore?

And as for celebvilla being reliable or not, I don't know. Although I could see how you would doubt a gossip rag if they said person A was dating person B just because they were seen at the same club or whatever but in this case, all they did was read what NYDog had to say and reprinted it. And NYDog seems reputable, no?

The dog was a big part of her image, so basically I don't see why removing info about the dog and PH isn't notable. Dismas|(talk) 12:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * NYDog seems reputable. I don't think so. That's where we disagree. You will of course say this is POV on my part. However, it is probably the most reputable source for this article. But what has it got to do with polls about dogs???    Wallie 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that the poll is "false". Please refer to WP:NOTABILITY.  Kasreyn 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which dog are we on about here?
 * The discussion refers to Hilton's toy dog Tinkerbell. Kasreyn 09:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Citiation
RE: In November 2004, Hilton participated in Sean "P. Diddy" Combs' Vote or Die campaign, to encourage youths to vote in the Presidential election. She drew criticism when it was revealed she did not vote, nor had she even registered to do so. [citation needed]

How long do we have to wait for this citiation. If it's not there in a week, bye bye! Wallie 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I did some searching, Wallie.  Here's what I found:
 * Newsmax: "Internet porn starlet Paris Hilton did not bother to vote..."
 * Honolulu Advertiser: "Paris Hilton has been spotted wearing the "Vote or die" shirt, too."
 * Fox News as a third party source: "Well, then she's dead. Can't vote. According to the New York Post, she's not registered in either New York or California."  Of course, Fox News does not qualify as a Reliable Source given their well-known bias, but the thing is, I can't seem to find where the NY Post said that!  A google of www.nypost.com returns nothing of the sort.
 * Youthvote.org: "Take Mr. Combs's Citizen Change, whose two main "talents" - the attention-crazed heiress Paris Hilton and the gifted but derivative rapper 50 Cent - are not even registered to vote."
 * TV.com: "In November 2004, Hilton participated in Sean "P. Diddy" Combs' Vote or Die campaign, to encourage youths to vote in the Presidential election. She drew criticism when it was revealed she did not vote, nor had she even registered to do so." - this appears to be a direct lift from Wikipedia's text, so probably is no good.
 * Anyway, that's the best I could do on short notice. The only really credible ones are the honolulu advertiser and youthvote.org.  What do you think?  Kasreyn 04:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looks like someone beat me to it!  Kasreyn 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another lot of tittle tattle/adults only/tabloid/foxnews etc. etc. "news media". I guess it can remain, since you tried so hard. Can't we get something as a citiation from the BBC, New York Times or even Pravda!... At least in these examples, she is connected with "derivative rapper 50 Cent" (sounds like Investment Banking?), and Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, so that sees off the racist claims... Wallie 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish how does being seen with these people see off the claim? She is using their notoriety as publicity, are you that easily swayed? Why are you so biased by this person who is only well known because she has rich parents?


 * Sorry, but I figure the Fox News link is more than valid enough. If you don't, then an RfC will be required. --Golbez 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious from my comments that I am not too concerned. Does it really matter what state PH is/is not registered for voting? Wallie 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wallie, not to be mean, but I've said this before... NYT/BBC/Pravda only report on important people.  That counts Paris Hilton out.  She doesn't qualify under their notability standard, so don't hold your breath for sourcing on that level.  Kasreyn 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, youthvote.org is definitely not a celeb gossip site, and as far as I know the Honolulu Advertiser is a legitimate newspaper. In fact, it's Hawai'i's largest paper by circulation.  The others, you're right about, though.  Kasreyn 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't take me seriously all the time. Wallie 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Just do me the same favor.  ;)  Kasreyn 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * K. Wallie 06:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, you think Foxnews is biased and NYT isn't? ALL media is biased. Fair journalism is dead.  Rob 14:18 19MAY2006
 * There's still NPR. They have a very bad habit of asking altogether weak questions - when they ask questions at all.  They're not as gutless as the NYT yet, though.  In general, though, they're just as clueless as every other major news source about how they're all being manipulated by reframing techniques.  You'd think they'd freaking teach that in journalism programs...  Kasreyn 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the picture!!
"Requires cleanup"? No shit.


 * There are four pictures in the article. We don't need any more.  --Yamla 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we coul do with some replacement pictures, honestly. The cover of One Night in Paris and Playboy...? Seriously, we could do better. Why not one of her 'Guess Jeans' photos or the cover of her book? Pazuzu567 03:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, because that wouldn't be fair-use. --Yamla 03:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've heard that there is some controversy over whether that's even Paris on that Playboy cover. Does anyone know if it's really her?  I'm not sure.  Kasreyn 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The amount of airbrushing that is used it's nearly impossible to know who it is. Anyway it's only the dirty mac brigade that bought it and won't have been looking at her face.


 * The article addresses this; no one knows. --Golbez 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia policies as illustrated here. Unfortunately, as some, including Kasreyn have pointed out, reliable sources are hard to find. But find them we must! I do feel, as I have pointed out in the past, that gossip sources, etc. are not reliable. Always remember that this is meant to be an encyclopedia, and should not be presented like a wanted poster. Wallie 13:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Discography
Please stop adding uncited, speculative/fake release dates for the album. There is no confirmed release date. The closest we've gotten is Paris apparently saying "September" on Ellen.

The date on the HMV UK website is also not worth noting as a source, as it says To Be Confirmed all over it, meaning that, surprisingly enough people, the release date is '''not confirmed. At all.'''

If tabloids are to be believed, Paris hasn't even finished recording all the tracks for the album. Pazuzu567 16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unbeleivable! People still quoting HMV, not even getting the correct release date off that site, and don't even know how to cite sources. To anyone who updates Singer or Discography with totally unconfirmed release dates: What are you even doing here? Pazuzu567 05:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to make this any clearer. The release date on HMV is not confirmed. Stop adding it. Pazuzu567 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the fact that she does not use her actual voice on the tracks should get a mention. i have tried to link it but as it goes against the belief of how she should be portrayed on here it is constantly deleted. discuss.

Reliable source
Quote from WP:Reliable source... ''Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.''

Please have a look at the above. It is very clear in its statement. The is much "unverified material" and conjecture in the various sources, themselves from unrealiable sources. In addition, the article contravenes all sorts of other tenets in the WP:Reliable source directive and other directives too. As you know, I have never been happy about parts of this article. I cannot see why we persist with this "critical, negative or harmful" stuff. Thank you. Wallie 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

General length of this article
The length of this article is utterly ridiculous. There is hardly any information that could be considered encyclopedia worthy aside from parts of the family background. Most of the article is nothing but wild fan obeisance (three paragraphs for That's Hot!) or totally unfounded tabloid parroting with such impressive sources like the NY Post, News of the World or the National Enquirer. Therefore I strongly suggest to considerably shorten this article. -- EnemyOfTheState 01:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No argument here. A great deal of the article's material, both pro- and anti-, is unsourced.  Kasreyn 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, "That's Hot", Discography, Controversies and Parodies are not adding anything to this article that is truly noteworthy. Come to think of it, neither is Filmography.


 * Background, Careers, Enterpeneur, Celebrity and Sex Symbol really take care of everything that is worth noting. For example; her films worth noting and information on her debut album are in the Careers section, do they really need their own sections too? It's probably about time we cut this article down, I think Celebrity-Benji 18:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the lengthy description of her perfume's traits is necessary? It seems to be an ancillary and unessentially florid piece of information; wouldn't it simply be easier (and stylistically more in keeping with Wikipedia) to simply make it known that she has a perfume line instead of discussing the aromas and scents that comprise it? Mohsin.Siddiqui 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed categories for deletion

 * "That's hot!"
 * Discography
 * Controversies
 * Filmography
 * Parodies

The Background, Careers, Entrepreneur and Celebrity and sex symbol sections cover a good deal of noteworthy information.

The Discography and Filmography are pointless esentially; due to the fact that Hilton's noteworthy performances in film and television are noted in Careers. Same can be said for the Discography. There is information on the album, aswell as a link to it's article under the Singer subtitle.

The "Controversies" have been debated to wit's end. Some people are for, some against, either way, they add very little to this article, are badly cited, and honestly hardly worth noting. Remove them completely: everyone wins. Nothing further to debate.

The Parodies are so pointless it's not funny. Plenty of people, places, and things have had parodies, but these are hardly notable as part of their Wikipedia article. This section is so unnesacary.

"That's Hot". Need I say more? It's a slogan she used a couple of years ago. Hardly worth noting.

At the end of the day, as has been pointed out; this article is WAY too long. It needs some cutting down. Let's get to it.

Celebrity-Benji 12:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with your proposed categories for deletion, I would probably keep Discography though. I suggest the following categories:


 * 1. Background
 * 2. Celebrity and Entrepreneur (to cover pretty much every aspect of her public life; model, actress, singer, designer, etc.)
 * 3. Filmography
 * 4. Discography (one line entries only!, not one big box for just a single album) --  EnemyOfTheState 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a very good point. 4 categories to cover all nesacary information. Maybe I should get to it. Celebrity-Benji 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is done. If you feel certain categories should be restored, please discuss here. Celebrity-Benji 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I must not have noticed when this was done, Pazuzu. Most of the "controversies" were pretty unimportant, but some have been removed which are definitely notable.  For instance, there is now no mention of the hacked address book, which caused a minor stir (though nothing like the sex tape itself did), and no mention of the slander lawsuit.  In general, the trimmed-down article seems better, but I feel these topics may well be notable.
 * P.S. How does one source a claim that a particular book is or was a NYT Bestseller? Kasreyn 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the controversies were important. The hacked address book? Who cares. It happenned. It doesn't shape who she is, what she does, and didn't do anything to further her career. It caused a stir, yes, but Wiki is not a news site, and the hacked address book is something that happened, and all involved (Paris, and those whose numbers were leaked) have moved on and forgotten about it. It honestly means nill.
 * The slander lawsuit is also something that came and went and was quickly forgotten. The woman who was filing the suit was later seen out wtih Hilton on good terms. The lawsuit was not important.
 * As for the book beeing a best-seller, leave that with me and I'll find a source. Celebrity-Benji 15:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All right. Kasreyn 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry
"Paris Hilton is of German and Norwegian ancestry"

Her great-great grandparents on her father's side were German and Norwegian. At the risk of sounding pedantic, isn't such a connection a bit too distant to warrant a mention? It would be more accurate to classify her as of primarily British ancestry.


 * In fact, it's debatable and unimportant, so it's better off gone. - Nunh-huh 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Musical Artist ?
I dont mean to be picky, but the box at the top of the page says "musical artist". I realize she had some tracks leaked on the internet and a video on MTV, but I think she is still better known for that reality tv show, so shouldn't it be "Reality Television Star" ? Dowew 03:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198368,00.html
 * I would tend to agree with that. It was in connection with reality TV that I first heard of her.  I would dispute the idea that Wikipedia should meekly go along with it when someone pays a studio a lot of money to declare themself a musician.  As with any form of art, achievement is measured by critical review, not by money spent.  Kasreyn 04:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198368,00.html
 * More pedantically, shouldn't it be music artist or musician? ;) Actually, I tend to agree with Kasreyn; a handful of "tracks" does not one a "musical artist" make.  It seems to be an unmerited accolade/title.Mohsin.Siddiqui 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198368,00.html
 * I agree, the box at the top should be edited. She is not generally concidered a "musical artist" and - I just checked - pretty much no A-list actors has more than two entries (born, occupation) in these boxes. -- EnemyOfTheState 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198368,00.html

One Night in Paris
Why isn't he sex tape mentioned? --DragonWR12LB 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it doesn't fit in with the REAL paris that true observers see. Just the glossy followers version. She is a spoilt brat with a dog, nothing more. Someone laughingly suggested she was up there with Marilyn Monroe or even Helen of Troy for historical worth!!! oh dear. what next? Britney Spears as mother of the decade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.100 (talk • contribs)

I have to agree. Including three paragraphs on her perfume and nothing on the sex tape is a mistake. I would imagine that things like the leaked sex tape, the allegations of racism, the leaked PDA entry, and whatever else, are far more interesting to people and therefore far more useful to include here, than Paris Hilton's discography or perfume. To make no mention of the sex tape in the body of the article makes Wikipedia look craven. Rose. 219.88.74.1 03:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The sex tape is mentioned. Controversies are useless. Doesn't matter how "interesting" they are, Wikipedia is not a news site. They added little/nothing to the overall, and detract from it as an Encyclopedia-esque article. They were debated constatnly, and were not worth keeping around. The sex tape is mentioned, and that's it. Nothing else needs to be said. Celebrity-Benji 04:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think more than a mere mention is needed, since it's one of the most important events in her life which the public are aware of, as well as one of the most controversial and commented-on. Kasreyn 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A mere mention is all that is needed. This is not the 1 Night in Paris article. If you want to provide more info on the tape, go edit that. It is mentioned in her background; we are acknowledging that it is, in your words an "important event", and sure, maybe it even helped her career, but the tape itself has it's own article, no more information on it need be plastered in this article. This article is already considered too long, so if we're comparing the mention of the sex tape to the mention of her perfume for example, I acknowledge that perhaps the section on her perfume could use some tidying/shortening. Celebrity-Benji 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It beggars belief that you feel it is so meaningless and not important to mention. it gives an overall picture of the individual. it shows the actual character we are dealing with and allows the reader a fuller picture and not the pretty picture some try to paint.
 * Please learn how to sign your posts. The instructions are at the top of the page. It's not that hard. Celebrity-Benji 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More Cleanup
I have now done alot more cleaning up of the article, have cut some of the sections down that were very overly-descriptive, etc. Celebrity-Benji 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV section
As Coltonblue has recently added an NPOV-section tag to the article, it falls upon him to explain what in that particular section constitutes a violation of NPOV in order for the tag to remain. Care to fill us in with some specifics, Colton? Kasreyn 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I'm inclined to remove it. Celebrity-Benji 04:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A remark was slipped in about her prancing about like the "tramp" she was. Sound neutral to you? Coltonblue 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Coltonblue
 * You will be pleased to note that I personally removed the "like the tramp she is" remark myself. And thanks to Pazuzu's suggestion with a little help from me, the entire description of her music video has been moved to the article on Stars Are Blind.  Will that be all?  Kasreyn 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will. Didn't notice that you had. No need to get all pissy. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar... though you might not necessarily want flies... O.O Coltonblue 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Coltonblue
 * You're right; sorry for my tone. But, I really do want to know:  are there still NPOV problems with the section?  Kasreyn 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Heritage
Im certained she had Norweigan blood in her. Has someone also removed the Norwegian-American template?
 * Why? Has she had a blood transfusion in Norway recently? Wallie 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dumb Nigger" Tape
I removed joining this with the first tape as objectional, since I dont consider the Sex objectionable (at least not with Paris!). I'm sure nobodys kicked her out of bed for eating crackers Has anybody here actually seen this second tape? This sounds like an unverifiable slanderous rumor which anybody could claim against anybody .I have seen the first tape and I know it exists. If this tape really existed it would worth millions and be all over the internet. I really think this should be removed as it is most likely false based upon what we know what would happen to the tape if it really existed. For all we know it was a stand in double like the double they used for the Playboy cover(Doug rosenberg 01:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC))
 * The tape was rumour reported in tabloids, with an apparent confirmation by someone who is actually friends with Hilton. Yeah... The controversies were removed. The racism allegations are not important, and very unlikely to be true. It's gone now. It'll stay gone. Celebrity-Benji 10:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You! I didnt want to delete it myself because I dont know how strongly people felt about this since I just got here but not a day goes by when somebody isn't accused of some racist remark. I don't have anything against saying something negative against her if verifiable. If people are interested in that direction, they can pursue the perjury charges that she going to confront later in the year at her trial. They have the full transcripts from her depostition at courtTV somewhere there and they are positively, hysterical. She plays the "Dumb Blond" better than any Marlyn Monroe to try to be evasive. There's something in them about not knowing France or England is in Europe.(Doug rosenberg 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

Do you know of any courtroom she, or her father, can't buy? she is almost untouchable. that's the problem with this type of non-celeb.


 * If you want to see someone who knows how to play a dumb blonde, rent one of Ellen DeGeneres's HBO specials. I don't think Paris is playing.  Kasreyn 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Has this one come to trial yet or was it paid for too? http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3473930

Query
Why the hell is this page so long? And why is her page so short? Someone write more stuff. Also, why does the article fail to list the genre of her music?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198368,00.html Come on, this is the most famous person in the world, such a pathetic article wouldn't do any good. --Scotteh 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

i have to guess there was a hint of sarcasm? i would say the article is too long for a parent made non-celeb. her cash makes her famous the rest is just incidental.


 * Well, this isn't a fan site. It's just here to present facts in an Encyclopedia-esque way. It used to be very overly-detailed, and was quite frankly; way too long. At the moment, some people may even say it is still too long, but I think everything it contains at the moment is factual and well written.
 * Also, to be fair, we have touched upon everything of importance. All her careers are mentioned, and links to other articles are provided. For example, for more info on her music career, one could follow the link to her album page.
 * And "most famous person in the world" would be debatable... Celebrity-Benji 21:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say the length is about right at this point. And I desperately hope she's not the most famous person in the world...  why, the very thought may give me nightmares tonight.  :(  Kasreyn 05:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be longer. Any improperly removed detail should be restored. Everyking 11:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no it shouldn't. Celebrity-Benji 13:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The detail doesn't appear adequate to be a really good and comprehensive reference for people. Many of the sections are just plain tiny! And subarticles are no excuse for most of this, because most of the sections have no subarticles. Create subarticles on every aspect of Paris mentioned here and then you'll have a somewhat better argument. What I see here is a deletionist attitude. Everyking 05:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting beyond a joke. We are basically talking about a spoilt little rich girl whose main claim to fame is being a racist leech who uses leaked sex tales to gain notoriety. There is nothing in the text to reflect that, why? The only reason she exists is the vaccuous simpletons that lap up the glossy magazines with airbrushed unrealities passed off as the supposed ideal! the same magazines force an unfortunate view of what they believe is beauty even if it is caked beneath 7 layers of face paint and air brush working. The sycohantic way people here seem to picture her as an icon is sickening, is she was any other persons daughter you would have reigned her in and taught her some respect and humility and suggested a little class to go with it. Maybe i am just annoyed by consumer sheep with no individual thought, but hey that's what the corporation wants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.100 (talk • contribs)


 * Unless you want to start being overly-descriptive, and making the page a mess, I suggest you take a good look at the article, and take into account that there is plenty of information here. Any more is totally over-doing it. We have touched upon everything of importance, all her careers are mentioned, her background is mentioned, we even talk about the sex tape. What else do you want? Some of the sections may seem tiny because that's all that need be said about them without being overly-descriptive, and making the page way too long again. For example; we used to have 3 very long paragraphs about the perfume; it just wasn't nesacary. The length of this article at the moment is fine. It's all direct and too the point, not wasting space on tabloid rubbish "controversies" and other unesacary information. Keep in mind this is not a fan-site, it's an Encyclopedia. Celebrity-Benji 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This "overly-descriptive" notion you speak of with disdain sounds rather appealing to me. I boldly suggest that we try "over-doing it" rather than under doing it. Can you imagine, if a reader could come here and get complete and comprehensive info instead of a shabby little summary? If somebody wasn't actively killing information based on some misguided idea about it being "rubbish" and "unnecessary"&mdash;we even get a mention of the sex tape, which is essentially her biggest claim to fame. How generous. Everyking 11:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We have over-done it before. This is not a fan-site. We're not here to over glamorise or de-glamorise Hilton, we're here to present facts, and that is what we have done. Don't tell me I'm misguided for getting rid of slander and tabloid rumours that were presented as "controversies" and created heated debates here in the talk page. They were rubbish and totallly not worth noting. The parodies? Please! Again not even worth noting. Like I said; this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We're presenting facts and information; and that we have done. I'm having trouble understanding why you would want to restore this article to the mess it was before; most have agreed it's a much better reflection of Hilton, and like I said, simply presents facts. Also, the sex tape being her biggest claim to fame is very debatable. It helped launch her careers, perhaps. But honestly, you don't get as famous as Hilton is for making 1 unnofical porn. She was known-of before it's release, she was modelling and known for her celebrity friends. The tape leaked just before The Simple Life premiered, which peaople were anticipating as they knew her anyway. The sex tape helped, it is not her biggest claim to fame. She is known for plenty of other things; I'd say in the mainstream, The Simple Life is probably what she's best known for. I didn't know who she was before I watched it. I don't think I'd never heard of her before I watched it. The sex tape is minuscule, it's not something she ever focuses on. It happened and she moved on. It's, quite honestly, something her detractors just like to focus on. And if you wish to expand info on it, there's a fantastic article all about it called 1 Night in Paris that you could edit to your hearts' content. Celebrity-Benji 20:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

drug use
does her use of hard drugs such as, crack cocaine come into play regarding her history ?


 * No, not unless it can be cited by a reliable source. --Yamla 17:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ok thank you wasn't sure i'll work on finding sources


 * I doubt you'll find any reliable sources, and even then, what's it got to do with anything? How is it notable in relation to her background exactly? Do we often focus on drug-use for celebrites unless it is a major aspect for their fame (i.e Courtney Love) ? In the case of Hilton, it has not been a major factor in her fame, so honestly, it's not really worth focussing on. It would come across as slander at best.


 * And sign you posts in future. I don't like talking to a ghost. Celebrity-Benji 00:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

{Editprotected} Because this page should be unlocked because a lot of info exsist about her and should be able to be added
 * Like what? Be more specific. Celebrity-Benji 09:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did someone say she has blue eyes when they are really brown. That should be mentioned.


 * I have removed the {Editprotected}, that articles is not fully protected - so just ask here on the talk page for a registered user to make the change (no need for an admin to do it).--Commander Keane 17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Parodies"?
How are parodies a career? Removed. Celebrity-Benji 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sex Symbol
'''On March 8, 2006, Brian Quintana, an event producer, was granted a three-year restraining order against Hilton after he testified that she harassed and threatened him. Quintana claimed their relationship soured after he urged Stavros Niarchos to reconsider dating Hilton'''

What exactly does this have to do with being a sex symbol or any career? Celebrity-Benji 14:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I only placed it there because the former reference to Niarchos was already in that section, and the restraining order was (somewhat) related to him. I agree it's not a very good spot for it but I'm not sure where else to put it.
 * I don't see what it has to do with a career, but at the same time I don't see why it should have to. Kasreyn 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, sorry - didn't notice that "sex symbol" was a sub-category of "careers" - in fact, is sex symbol even a career itself? How about we separate that bit and call it "personal life" or something instead? I've never heard anyone say their career was "sex symbol". Kasreyn 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it there. It used to be seperate, someone mereged it with careers, I changed it back, but the next edit merged it again, so I just left it there. Honestly, it does have nothing to do with her career, but is that section of Sex Symbol even notable? You want to expand it to Personal Life, but weren't we trying to keep the article from getting too long? Celebrity-Benji 16:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally i would remove the item sex symbol as that is a personal point of view really. some find her odd looking some find her good looking. i think personal life is a good section to add as it would allow the darker AND lighter side to be added.

Alleged Surgery
Paris Hilton has had surgery, allegedly. Can anyone confirm this?????
 * No, because it's only a theory. There is no evidence. Celebrity-Benji 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pfft. She's obviously has had surgery in the past. Her personality is fake enough, her body probably is to.

"low-end" Jewelery
I think the "low end" phrase is unesacary. To me, that implies bargain bin, when that wasn't the idea. The idea was to make the jewelery "look expensive", yet be affordable for Hilton's young fans. That is why I removed it. It could probably be described in a better fashion. Perhaps we could remove "low end" and describe how the idea was to make the jewelery "affordable". Celebrity-Benji 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I only added it to balance "high-end" in description of the handbags, but I see this has been removed. I would be amenable to your proposed change.  "Affordable" also works.  Kasreyn 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Jokes
So, shouldn't they be edited in? I have a few up my sleeve... Sarnath 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. --Golbez 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * absolutely not.--SweetNeo85 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyler Hilton???
Aren't they related???


 * No.Celebrity-Benji 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

the length of this discussion?
why on earth is there a 48, now 49, point discussion on a: boring, materialistic and painfully idiotic woman? The interest our society places on her is symptomatic of a signifigant failing in society. How is it possible that the Iraq war, something that is obviously far more important than this neuortic fool, only has a 14 point discussion whist trash 'celebs' like Hilton have lengthy discussions, concerning frivalous facts like her ridiculously named dog Tinkerbell? I'm very concerned,I think this article should be deleted altogether.
 * Umm... Talk: Iraq War has three archive pages, totalling 101 sections between them, plus the 14 current equals 115 sections. So yes, Paris Hilton is getting disproportionately too much discussion, but not by as much as you suggest.  Kasreyn 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ok apologies for the miscalculation, but i'm glad you agree with my opinon that those who have lengthy debates about paris hilton really do need to realise that there are more important issues at stake