Talk:Paris Hilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paris Hilton article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents 1 Redirection from Prostitution 2 Going to jail? 3 Explanation of my reverts 4 people constantly deleting any negative information 5 WP:BLP needs to be kept in mind 6 Porn Star in lead text 7 Trivia section 8 Nicole Fight 9 Celebrity spokesperson 10 In South Park 11 Paris Exposed

[edit] Redirection from Prostitution

I looked up prostitution and was redirected to Paris Hilton can someone fix this? Hotbikerguy

[edit] Going to jail?

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

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

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

[edit] Explanation of my reverts

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

1. An assertion that Hilton is "a naturally brown eyed brunette" using photographs here as a source. This website does not have any claim to credibility. There is no verification that (1) the photos are in fact of Paris Hilton, and (2) the earlier photo depicts her natural appearance. Furthermore, whether this is even notable is open to debate, which is another reason Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources. If a reliable one has done so, it probably can go in the article.
2. An assertion that Hilton uses the terms "chink", "niggers", and "faggot" on the videos. This is first problematic because no source is provided; an Internet video is unacceptable because there is no verification that it is genuine. On a different level, the information is poorly presented without context (who was she addressing?) or explanation of its implications (has anyone notable commented on it? Has Paris made a comment?). You could write that same sentence for a comedian's act, but of course would not unless it was commented on by an outside source providing more information on why it is notable.
3. An assertion that the racial slurs give "credence to earlier rumors in the gossip press regarding Hilton being racist towards African-Americans". This is a personal interpretation finding a connection between two separate events, not a straightforward logical deduction. Same with the comment that the herpes prescription "appears to confirm the truthfulness...that she suffers from the sexually-transmitted disease"
4. A partial list of items found in the locker. This again must be attributed to a reliable source.

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

[edit] people constantly deleting any negative information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. An assertion that Hilton is "a naturally brown eyed brunette" using photographs here as a source. This website does not have any claim to credibility. There is no verification that (1) the photos are in fact of Paris Hilton, and (2) the earlier photo depicts her natural appearance. Furthermore, whether this is even notable is open to debate, which is another reason Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources. If a reliable one has done so, it probably can go in the article.
2. An assertion that Hilton uses the terms "chink", "niggers", and "faggot" on the videos. This is first problematic because no source is provided; an Internet video is unacceptable because there is no verification that it is genuine. On a different level, the information is poorly presented without context (who was she addressing?) or explanation of its implications (has anyone notable commented on it? Has Paris made a comment?). You could write that same sentence for a comedian's act, but of course would not unless it was commented on by an outside source providing more information on why it is notable.
3. An assertion that the racial slurs give "credence to earlier rumors in the gossip press regarding Hilton being racist towards African-Americans". This is a personal interpretation finding a connection between two separate events, not a straightforward logical deduction. Same with the comment that the herpes prescription "appears to confirm the truthfulness...that she suffers from the sexually-transmitted disease"
4. A partial list of items found in the locker. This again must be attributed to a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The YouTube channel was well reported on by outside sources. YouTube partnered with Paris Hilton for the launch of their new "brand channels" feature. See for example [1] and [2]. That is information attributable to reliable sources. It is not in the article yet, but it should be. As you've identified above, there are several problems with this article, particularly with its reliance on less than ideal sources, but as I mentioned before, Wikipedia is especially careful with poorly sourced negative information for biographies of living people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] WP:BLP needs to be kept in mind

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

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

[edit] Porn Star in lead text

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Trivia section

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

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

[edit] Nicole Fight

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

[edit] Celebrity spokesperson

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

Guess. [3] Cleo123 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In South Park

In South Park 8x12 ["Stupid_Spoiled_Whore_Video_Playset" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_Spoiled_Whore_Video_Playset] she is potrayed as a spoiled stupid ... etc. Its trivia as well as cultural reference. Sometimes so sorry so many Americans edit this English Wikipedia - sometimes everything just looks to American ... Fortunately, USA boys also make South Park :-)

--Rastavox 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Exposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paris calls Nicky's future husband a "faggot", but it strains credulity to interpret it as a homophobic slur given the way it is uttered and the person to whom it is directed.

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

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